Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 6 March.

MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [LORDS]

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Tuesday 6 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — US National Missile Defence

Mr. Malcolm Savidge: What recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on national missile defence. [149702]

Mr. Alan Simpson: What recent discussions his Department has had with the US Administration in relation to national missile defence; and what assessment he has made about the implications of any such involvement for the UK. [149712]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is today attending the NATO North Atlantic council in Brussels, with the new United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell.
My right hon. Friend recently held discussions in Washington with Vice-President Cheney, National Security Adviser Rice and Secretary of State Powell on a range of issues, including national missile defence. Those discussions, and those that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had last week with President Bush, clearly demonstrated the constructive approach being taken by the Bush Administration. The US Administration reaffirmed their commitment to a national missile defence system, but stressed their willingness to take their time to consult allies, Russia and others. They confirmed that no

decision had yet been taken on the development or deployment of a specific system. It is therefore too early to assess any implications for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Savidge: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the report by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on weapons of mass destruction reflects concern across the political spectrum at the dangers of national missile defence, not least to the arms control process, and support for the Government, urging caution on the issue? Will he reassure us that there is no foundation for media reports stating that the Government have cut a deal to assist, encourage or advocate NMD, as that could undermine our policies and principles, our national interest and global security?

Mr. Vaz: I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the fact is that we made our position clear at the discussions between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, and I can do no better than to quote from the joint communiqué:
We recognise the existence of a common threat stemming from the growing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction … we are already working together in this area and agree on the need for further substantive bilateral consultations as well as consultations with other allies".
The United States of America is our closest ally and our strongest friend. It is important that we should discuss those matters with the US Administration. It is also important that they should consult ourselves and others, as they have agreed to do. We shall proceed on that basis because that is in the best interests of transatlantic security.

Mr. Simpson: My hon. Friend will know that, on 3 July last year, the Secretary of State for Defence told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that there was no significant threat to the United Kingdom from an attack by a rogue state. Why would we wish to change that position by making ourselves the most obvious target if we were to become the front-line partner of the American star wars initiative? Why has the United Kingdom invested more than £100 million so far in the star wars technology—a project that not only would breach the ABM treaty, but would have no international support across the developed world?

Mr. Vaz: Throughout my hon. Friend's career in politics he has had a long-standing commitment to the views that he has just expressed. The Government's position is absolutely clear. There is no difference between what the Secretary of State for Defence said last year and what the Prime Minister and President Bush said at Camp David last week, which is that there is a common threat. If our closest ally feels vulnerable, it is right that we should listen carefully to its concerns. There is no specific proposal on the table, as my hon. Friend knows. There is ample scope for consultation, and we have made it clear that we will look carefully at those very serious and sensitive matters. It is extremely important that we work with our allies to ensure that those matters are resolved. There is no significant threat to us, but there is a common threat that affects the security of a number of countries.

Sir Peter Tapsell: On the subject of national missile defence and the phantom


European army, will the Minister inquire of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why they appear to say one thing to the President of the United States and another thing to leaders of European Union countries? Is he aware that the French have a rather good ambassador in Washington who is having tremendous fun every evening dining out in political circles and reading out the conflicting messages that 10 Downing street is sending to Europe and to Washington?

Mr. Vaz: I am not responsible for what the ambassador does in his leisure time; I am responsible for telling the House that there is confusion because of the activities of the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). He travels like a weasel to Washington, giving out old draft documents and insulting the American Administration. The situation is clear and was set out by the President and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Camp David meeting last week. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what was agreed in the joint communiqué. It said:
The United States welcomes the European Union's European Security and Defence Policy intended to make Europe a stronger, more capable partner in deterring and managing crises affecting the security of the Transatlantic community".
As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as we have said on numerous occasions, NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy. No matter what confusion the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green wishes to sow wherever he goes, that remains the position.

Miss Anne McIntosh: The Vale of York is between Fylingdales and Menwith Hill, although neither is in my constituency. Before the Government consider any application from the United States on the national missile defence policy, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on what the cost of upgrading those two listening stations would be?

Mr. Vaz: I have had no discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter.

Mr. Lawrie Quinn: As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I represent the constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, which is very close to Fylingdales. The people of my constituency will welcome very much the consultation that was implied by the communiqué that was issued at the weekend. However, will there be any consultation with local people in the North Yorkshire moors area, should there be any further developments? Will there be any consideration of the fact that the base at Fylingdales is in a national park? Will that have any bearing on any potential developments at the site?

Mr. Vaz: I have listened to my hon. Friend and I can do no better than to pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. John Bercow: I welcome the generous compliment that the Minister has just bestowed on the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, my hon.

Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. He will be delighted to know that he has got up the Minister's nose to such an extent.
Why does the Minister not abandon his waffle, dither and procrastination and just admit to the House that the reason why he will not tell us clearly whether he and the Government are, in principle, in favour of national missile defence as a protection against the antics of rogue states is that the Ministry of Defence and his Department are irreconcilably split? Is it not the case that the Secretary of State for Defence can see the merits of such a system but that CND man—the Foreign Secretary, who consistently championed one-sided disarmament throughout the 1980s—remains feeble, passive and hopeless on this subject?

Mr. Vaz: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is working himself up into such a lather. The position is very clear. We recognise that there is a threat, as the President of the United States said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week. As the ally of the United States, we will be consulted, as others will be. That is the way forward. No specific proposal is on the table but when such a proposal is available for discussion, it will be discussed in the proper way. There is no difference between any members of the Government on that point; there is one specific policy that deals with the need to work with our allies, to be consulted by them and to move forward on this issue.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not clear that the Opposition must be bitterly disappointed at the outcome of the meeting in Washington because it was so obviously a success? On missile defence, my hon. Friend must know that the United States Administration is dropping the word "national." Although the conclusions of last August's Foreign Affairs Committee have been adopted, is it not clear that the Bush Administration's concept of such defence has moved on from a land-based strategy to a sea-based or space-based strategy? If that is technologically feasible, how long will it take before such a system becomes operational?

Mr. Vaz: There is no timing on that because no specific proposal is before the House. As for my right hon. Friend's first point, he is absolutely right; there were tears in central office last weekend when it was seen how successful the meeting had been between the Prime Minister and President Bush. The joint communiqué dealt with a number of crucial issues, including the President's support for the European security defence initiative and the support of our Government for consultations on NMD.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister's smug complacency takes the biscuit. The only weasels are those who sit on Labour Benches. Last week, the Prime Minister undoubtedly left the President of the United States with the impression that he would support the missile defence programme. However, on this side of the Atlantic, as reported in the Danish press, the Foreign Secretary reached an agreement with the Foreign Minister of Denmark last month that neither country would give the United States any indication that it was prepared to provide sites for the radar installations that are necessary for the missile shield to function. Is it not about time that the Government showed some leadership on the matter


rather than saying one thing in Europe and another thing in Washington? Is it not the truth that the only things to put in the box marked "handle with care" are the Government's promises?

Mr. Vaz: It is very sad when Opposition spokespersons prepare their supplementary questions before they hear the answers to earlier questions. The hon. Lady will know that she is completely wrong. Her question goes to the heart of the way in which the Opposition want to deal with the policy; they provide misinformation to everyone, causing massive confusion. The fact is that no decision has been made. An agreement was reached at Camp David last week that there should be consultation between the United States and the United Kingdom, and further consultation with allies and with Russia. That remains the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — Iraq

Mr. Bill Michie: What UN Security Council meetings are planned in the next three months to discuss policy towards Iraq.[149703]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): To date, the Security Council has scheduled meetings on Iraq issues on 8 March, 31 March and an unspecified date in April. In addition, the Iraq sanctions committee meets on a regular basis to discuss all aspects of Iraq policy.

Mr. Michie: The situation is serious and future loss of life on both sides—by accident or design—is a stark reality. Since I accepted what was at the time the King's shilling and wore uniform, I have been convinced that politicians who vote for war and armed conflict should be the first on the front line, thus possibly avoiding future conflicts throughout the world. Will my hon. Friend talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to find an alternative to break the deadlock before more lives are lost, because two wrongs do not make a right?

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend would agree that continuing a wrong does not make a right, and that is what we confront in the Iraqi regime. I am pleased to spell out the differentiation. Nothing that we or the United Nations do is intended to hurt the Iraqi people; that is not the purpose. The purpose is most definitely to prevent the Iraqi regime from developing weapons of mass destruction, from attacking its neighbours—as it did 10 years ago—or from using chemical weapons against its own people, as it also did in the not-so-distant past. Let us keep the balance right and implement policy as effectively as possible. We must not abandon our resolve to prevent the Iraqi regime from acting in the way that I have described.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the Minister to what I believe is his first Foreign Office Question Time? If any information were required on the need to review policy towards Iraq, was it not to be found in the rather cold and frigid reception for Colin Powell as he toured Arab capitals over the past two or three days? With three out of five of the permanent members of the Security Council no longer supporting the

sanctions regime and no Arab Government, apart from Kuwait, being prepared to offer public support for the regime, is it not now time to do what the Minister was hinting at over the weekend, which is to institute a full-scale review of policy towards Iraq, out of which should come a sanctions regime that is related to military and dual-use equipment, but excludes non-military sanctions?

Mr. Wilson: The purpose of the sanctions regime and that of United Nations Security Council resolutions is to achieve exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described: to target the military capacity of Saddam Hussein. Of course, there are items that fall into the dual-use category.
It is no part of my intention, or anyone else's, that humanitarian goods should be caught up in the sanctions regime. As I have said, if there are concrete examples of that happening, they should be drawn to the attention of the Government and the UN sanctions committee. Merely to assert that there are such examples plays into the propaganda efforts of Saddam Hussein, in whose interests it is to claim that, by definition, if we prevent him from building weapons of mass destruction, we are visiting humanitarian suffering upon his people.
That is not true. Saddam Hussein is inflicting that suffering, as I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman well knows. There is $11 billion lying in bank accounts that Saddam Hussein could be using for the humanitarian good of his own people. He chooses not to do so because he prefers the propaganda value of that $11 billion to the practical effect of the money.

Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend the Minister has said that anyone who points to the dire humanitarian consequences of the sanctions regime against Iraq is a dupe. He will be aware that two successive UN co-ordinators in the regime have both said clearly and publicly throughout the world that there are massive humanitarian consequences of the sanctions regime, and that, as relevant UN officials, they cannot support it. Does he believe that they too are dupes?

Mr. Wilson: I said absolutely no such thing. I respect the many people who are genuinely concerned about the sanctions regime and the way in which sanctions are implemented. I am not speaking negatively about those who hold that view which, doubtless, is shared by my hon. Friend. It is positive to say that we must distinguish between two approaches. One is directed against weapons of mass destruction, and one is purported to be directed against the humanitarian interests of the Iraqi people. In so far as there is purported to be confusion, it serves only Saddam Hussein. That is why he seeks to imply that one approach is the inevitable consequence of the other.
If the approach can be better, of course it should be better. Everyone agrees about that and is trying to take the agenda forward. The logical conclusion is not to abandon sanctions, to allow the means of developing weapons of mass destruction—including the development of the chemical weapons programme—and to allow another attack on Kuwait or anywhere else. It is in our interests to distinguish the two objectives, and we shall do that more effectively in future than in the past. The objective remains clear. The primary objective—which is in the


interests of the world, and of the region—is to stop Saddam Hussein developing the potential that we are discussing.

Mr. Tom King: If we ask our brave pilots in the RAF to undertake challenging and dangerous missions, are they not entitled to expect the widest support in the United Kingdom and throughout the world community for the task that they are carrying out, which is of the highest humanitarian order? If there is concern about whether people understand why the task is being undertaken, is it not beholden on the Government to ensure that there is a much clearer picture in people's minds in the United Kingdom and more widely of the real threats that are posed to the southern Shia people and the marsh Arabs, given the brutality and awfulness that was suffered by the people of Kuwait? Will the Government make a great effort to support our pilots in the task that they have been given?

Mr. Wilson: The raids of a fortnight ago were launched precisely in pursuit of that objective and were not an extension of policy towards Iraq. We were merely saying that if we ask aircrews to cover the southern no-fly zone, we must make sure that they have the best protection possible. I find it difficult to believe that we cannot achieve full consensus on that point, even if on no other. If we ask our aircrews to do a job, we must protect them. It is as simple as that.
Like me, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) went to Kuwait at the weekend, and there are plenty of reminders there that we are not talking about some hypothetical threat. It is not an invention of paranoid minds that Saddam Hussein might do certain things in the region; he did them 10 years ago. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in wishing to mention the people whom we met in Kuwait—mothers, daughters and children of 660 prisoners of war who have never been accounted for. The Iraqi regime has made no attempt to tell those prisoners' loved ones whether they are alive or dead or to describe their treatment. Those people are not propaganda, but real, flesh-and-blood human beings. If we had some movement from the Iraqi regime on such questions, some of the other claims made on its behalf might be a little more credible.

Mr. Steve McCabe: What discussions does my hon. Friend plan to hold with the Indian authorities and at the United Nations about the alleged activities of the Delhi-based company NEC Ltd, which is alleged to be supplying missile material and biological weapons material to the Iraqi regime? Is that not exactly the type of activity that must be ended if there are to be any developments in policy towards Iraq?

Mr. Wilson: Any alleged breach of sanctions should be investigated, including that one. Breaches of sanctions are occurring; we cannot have sanctions without breaches. However, that does not invalidate the case for sanctions, which will play the key role in stopping Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction. I undertake to write to my hon. Friend on the specific case to which he referred.
Discussions are taking place, and that is one reason for Colin Powell's presence in the region during the past few days. He has talked with representatives of neighbouring

countries to try to persuade them that sanctions must be enforced. Sanctions were not invented by the Government or by the United States; they are carried out under United Nations Security Council resolution 1284. The way out for the Iraqi regime is to allow the inspectors in to see what is going on. If that happens, sanctions can be suspended and, ultimately, lifted. That is a simple, straightforward way ahead, but it requires Saddam Hussein not to develop weapons of mass destruction or chemical weapons, and not to attack his neighbours. The House was united on all those objectives 10 years ago, and it should be united now.

Oral Answers to Questions — British-American Relations (Europe)

Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will meet the US Secretary of State to discuss bilateral relations between the United Kingdom and the United States with regard to Europe. [149704]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met Secretary of State Colin Powell between 5 and 7 February during a round of visits to Washington. He discussed the whole range of British-American relations.

Mr. Fabricant: The Minister will be aware that President Chirac has said that the raison d'être of the European rapid reaction force is to contain the United States. [Laughter.] The Minister may laugh, but that is what President Chirac said; I shall say it in French, if the Minister likes. [HON MEMBERS: "Go on."] It would, perhaps, be out of order to do so.
The Minister read, with some smugness, the communiqué issued from Washington last weekend. Is he aware that, since then, the French and Italian military attaches have said—not in their spare time, as he said, but in time paid for by their Governments—that the information given to President Bush was incorrect? If the Minister read the Nice treaty, he would find that it contains reference to an independent command structure.

Mr. Vaz: indicated dissent.

Mr. Fabricant: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to shake his head; I suspect that he has not read the Nice treaty. If he has, he will know that it identifies an independent chain of command for the European rapid reaction force, independent from NATO. That is the whole raison d'etre of the force. Does the Minister not realise that we live in a small world, and that he cannot do what the Liberals do—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister should now answer the question.

Mr. Vaz: Indeed, it is a small world. I have read the treaty of Nice. When the hon. Gentleman reads the treaty—a copy of which I will send him, as it was signed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary only yesterday in Nice—he will find that defence is not mentioned in the treaty itself. The clauses and propositions concerning defence are in the annexes.
May I clear up a further point? There are 372 million people in the European Union. The hon. Gentleman quotes a couple of defence attachés from countries that he names. I much prefer the views of the Heads of Government at Nice, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country. Our position on European security and defence policy has been made absolutely clear.
May I tell the hon. Gentleman whom he should thank for ensuring that defence was part of the European Union? He should thank his right hon. Fried the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who signed be Maastricht treaty. That was the first time that a common defence framework was mentioned in a European treaty, and we must thank the right hon. Member for Horsham for that.
I was very pleased, and the entire House should be pleased, with the communiqué that came out of Camp David last week. It is important that we treat these issues seriously. Throughout the process, our American allies were told what was happening. Before Nice, they were sent copies of the treaty and the annexes. After the treaty was approved at Nice, a communiqué from NATO was drafted by the Americans and the United Kingdom Government, among others.

Mr. John McFall: Does my hon. Friend welcome the accord at Camp David, which repudiated the isolationist policies of parties such as the Conservative Opposition and particularly of people such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who says that our EU partners are influenced by anti-Americanism? Is it not the case that a country such as Britain must be friends with both America and the European Union in the interests of jobs, as well as world security?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Opposition are so bitterly disappointed because of the success of the Camp David meeting and of the Nice treaty that they have nothing to proclaim as result of those two events. My hon. Friend is right that we have a close and strong ally in the United States of America—as demonstrated by the meeting between President Bush and our Prime Minister—and that we are a leading player in Europe, shaping the European agenda. That is the best of both worlds.

Mr. Francis Maude: Last Thursday, the Foreign Secretary said on "Question Time" that the EU rapid reaction force would be "firmly anchored within NATO." One of the papers that was signed at Nice—not by a couple of military attachés, but by the Heads of Government and Heads of State to whom the Minister refers—stated that
the entire chain of command must remain under the political control and strategic direction of the EU throughout the operation".
Will the Minister tell us how that is consistent with the force being "anchored within NATO"?

Mr. Vaz: That is absolutely consistent with the force being anchored within NATO. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the Petersberg tasks. If he looks back, he will recall that, in 1992, two members of the Government of whom he was a member,

Sir Malcolm Rifkind and the noble Lord Hurd, signed up to the Petersberg tasks. The process began under the previous Conservative Government.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Petersberg tasks deal with certain humanitarian and crisis management issues. He also knows that NATO is the cornerstone of our transatlantic security policy. Of course, we will have to draw on the planning, resources, capabilities and assets of NATO. That remains the case. As Lord Robertson said on the "Today" programme this morning, there will be only a very small number of cases involving minor issues that European nations will have the capability to deal with themselves. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to when he quotes that sentence.

Mr. Maude: It is not at all clear whether the Minister is denying that the rapid reaction force is anchored within NATO. He appears to be saying that it was never meant to be and that the Foreign Secretary was talking about something else. He certainly has not begun to explain how the Foreign Secretary's comments last Thursday are consistent with what he signed up to at Nice.
However, that is not all. We are told by President Bush that the Prime Minister assured him at the weekend that European defence
would in no way undermine NATO",
that there "would be joint command" and that
planning would take place within NATO.
The Prime Minister used the words "within NATO", but the papers to which he signed up state:
The European Council has decided to establish … The Military Committee of the European Union; The Military Staff of the European Union.
Is not it clear that the Prime Minister's assurances to President Bush were simply not true?

Mr. Vaz: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman starts to read the annexes in English rather than German. If he does so, he will see that they are fully consistent with what the Prime Minister said to President Bush on 23 February. They are also entirely consistent with what the Foreign Secretary said last week. Lord Robertson, who happens to be the Secretary General of NATO, said:
It is very difficult to see circumstances other than the very smallest ones, which will be done perhaps by individual countries grouping together, where they would not require or want or find desirable to have NATO assets and capabilities.
He is dealing with those small circumstances that are defined in the Petersberg tasks, and not with the major situations that have been described. NATO remains the cornerstone of our transatlantic defence policy.
Of course, we have to draw on the assets, planning and capabilities of NATO. That is why the Prime Minister made those remarks to President Bush and why the president is so reassured. What upsets the right hon. Gentleman is that there was agreement at Nice and that the President of the United States supports the European defence policy.

Mr. Maude: The Minister has utterly failed to explain how the phrases "anchored within NATO" and "joint command" are compatible with what the Government signed up to. On television last week, the Foreign


Secretary claimed that he had written most of the papers himself. That is an improbable contention, but let us take his word for it. I have read out some of the words that he claims to have written, but they are inconsistent with what the Government are now saying.
Why will not the Government accept that they have signed up to a project that is deliberately designed to be autonomous from NATO and which, as our American partners have said, runs the serious risk of undermining it? The only way of wringing even a qualified approval from the United States is by misrepresenting what has been agreed. Is not the right course now to accept that that is the wrong way to achieve the desirable aim of enhancing European defence co-operation and capability, and that the right way is to return to the European Security and Defence Initiative model agreed by my right hon. Friends in 1996, which was genuinely anchored within NATO?

Mr. Vaz: I am sorry, but I shall have to invite the right hon. Gentleman to come and see me in my office, where I can properly explain these issues to him. He has been relying so totally on what has been said by the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, that he does not understand the issues. I am sad about that, but let me explain it to him for a third time. NATO remains the cornerstone of the Government's defence policy and that of Europe. Of course, the European rapid reaction force is anchored within NATO and will act only once NATO finds that it does not want to be fully engaged. That is the point.

Mr. Maude: This does not say that.

Mr. Vaz: It does say that. The right hon. Gentleman takes one sentence out of a whole set of annexes. I will use my highlighter pen and send him a copy of the document that will set the position out. That is how it is to work. It has the support of President Chirac, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of this country. I know that it does not have the support of the right hon. Gentleman, because he simply cannot understand it.

Oral Answers to Questions — British Trade International

Ms Sally Keeble: What assistance and advice on promoting overseas trade is being offered to the English regions by British Trade International. [149705]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): British Trade International, through its trade support arm Trade Partners UK, delivers its advice and assistance in the English regions through international trade teams in the business links, led by nine international trade directors. Assistance covers every facet of international trade, with particular emphasis on small and medium enterprises.

Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that business link in Northamptonshire, which is a full programme of trade fairs, found in a recent survey that there had been a 6 per cent. increase in the value of export sales by local firms in the last half of last year and

that, in addition, 65 to 70 per cent. of those exports were to the European Union? Does he agree that the important job of building on that success is ill served by the Conservative party's anti-European rhetoric?

Mr. Wilson: I do not know very many serious exporters who would support the Conservative party's policy. Indeed, they can be certain that the key to the success of British exporters lies largely in Europe and that any turning of our back on Europe would be disastrous for them. Our record success in attracting inward investment is due to our place in the EU and the Government's position on the single currency.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that British Trade International bears in mind, when giving advice to British regions and elsewhere, the experience of Sainsbury and Wena Hotels Ltd. in trading and investing in Egypt, and warns potential British investors in Egypt of the possible pitfalls of investing in that country?

Mr. Wilson: The normal advice is available to any company investing in any country. Personally, I would not give such advice on Egypt, with which we have very good relations. The Wena Hotels case to which the hon. Gentleman refers is the subject of on-going legal action. As he knows, because I wrote to him, I raised the matter with the Prime Minister of Egypt when I met him recently. Equally, the Sainsbury story is complex and I do not think that it has yet reached its conclusion. I would certainly not reach the general conclusion about Egypt that the hon. Gentleman has drawn.

Mr. Adrian Bailey: Did my hon. Friend notice the recent call by the chairman of Ford Europe for the Tory party to rethink its policy on the euro? Does not my hon. Friend think that the Tory party is putting its own prejudices before the interests of British jobs, British workers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not responsible for those matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nobody is."] Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — Ilisu Dam

Mr. Simon Thomas: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the export credit guarantee for the Ilisu dam in Turkey. [149706]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have had several discussions about the Ilisu dam project in Turkey. My officials remain in close touch with their counterparts at the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, in order to monitor progress on the four areas of concern set out by right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 December 1999.

Mr. Thomas: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I draw his attention to the conclusion of the International Development Committee's sixth report, which states:
The Ilisu Dam was from the outset conceived and planned in contravention of international standards, and it still does not comply"?
In the light of the current financial chaos in Turkey, does he agree that the United Kingdom taxpayer should not touch that project with a bargepole? Will he use the last remnants of his Department's ethical foreign policy to ensure that the Government do not support the project?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those concerns; they have of course been raised a number of times before. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made it clear that he will not give his agreement unless there is progress on meeting the points that he has made. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they are very important points to do with resettlement, the environment, water disposal and other such issues. Unless they are dealt with, there is no question of the project being agreed. We are very concerned about the human dimension of the matter, and the hon. Gentleman can be reassured that no decision will be taken unless those criteria have been met.

Ann Clwyd: As the only member of the International Development Committee to visit the site of the Ilisu dam, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that the plan as it stands meets none of the criteria—on environmental, developmental or human rights grounds? It is time that we said to the Turks "Nothing doing; we will have nothing to do with the plan", because 75,000 people cannot be kicked out of their homes without being consulted on the plan well before it is executed.

Mr. Vaz: No Member of the House has done more to highlight these issues than my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the work that she has done on this matter. She speaks eloquently about these issues. She is either about to meet the Turkish Ambassador or she has met him recently, and I am sure that she has put her views more forcefully than even I could. What she has to say is highly relevant, and I assure her that her views are carefully listened to in the Foreign Office. As I said to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), no decision will be taken until the criteria laid down by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are met.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Minister realise that more than 70,000 people will be displaced by the Ilisu dam project, losing their land and their livelihoods? How many of those people does he estimate will be washed up on our shores and those of other European countries seeking asylum? Does he agree with me and some of his colleagues that it would be preferable to make life better for the citizens of countries such as Turkey by preventing projects such as the Ilisu dam, rather than trying to cope with a continuing stream of people wanting to get a better life elsewhere?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. She knows about these matters as she is a distinguished member of the International Development Committee. I reassure her, as I did my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and the hon. Member for

Ceredigion, that these are real issues affecting real people and that, given the humanitarian consequences, no decisions will be taken until the criteria set out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have been met. If they are not met, no agreement will be given by him.

Oral Answers to Questions — Turkey

Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Turkey. [R] [149707]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): Turkey is a strong ally of the United Kingdom. It is a NATO member, and a potential European Union partner. Many companies in this country export to Turkey.

Mr. Chapman: Do not the devaluation of the lira and other events underline the need for Britain and other western nations to maintain a close dialogue with Turkey? If Turkey were to switch from secular, democratic and European paths and instead were to follow fundamentalist policies, would not Europe and the whole of the region be the losers?

Mr. Vaz: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as Chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Turkey. He has developed a close relationship with a number of groups in Turkey. I assure him that we are concerned, as he and others are, about the state of the currency in Turkey, and we are monitoring the situation carefully. As he knows, last year at Helsinki, Turkey was given the status of a candidate country for admission to the European Union. It is considering its accession partnership, which was agreed on a political basis on 4 December last year. We shall ensure that that process continues, and shall give Turkey any assistance that we can. However, the fact remains that Turkey must meet the Copenhagen criteria on human rights issues. We are monitoring that carefully, and we shall continue to work with Turkey as an ally.

Sir David Madel: The question refers to Britain's relations with Turkey. Does the Minister agree that our relations with Turkey will not improve until Turkey withdraws from northern Cyprus?

Mr. Vaz: Relations between Britain and Turkey are very good, and that will continue. The problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred is on-going. He will know that the Government's position is to support the talks taking place under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We urge all parties to be involved in those discussions. The hon. Gentleman will know that these matters cannot be solved overnight. These are sensitive decisions, and there must be careful discussion between all the parties. That will continue until we get a just and lasting solution to the problem.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: As relations with Turkey are so good, can the Minister tell us what pressure has been put on the Turkish Administration to persuade them to cease military activity against Kurdish people in Turkey and over the border in Iraq? What representations have British representatives in Ankara


made about prison conditions in Turkey, the large number of people who have been on hunger strike in prison and the continuing violation of the human rights of Kurdish people throughout that country?

Mr. Vaz: I have spoken personally to the Turkish ambassador following an appeal by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the situation in Turkish prisons, which has caused concern. It is important that the Turkish Government address that concern, and the ambassador gave me assurance that he will raise the matter with Ankara so that there are improvements.

Mr. Corbyn: What about the bombing?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend asks about the bombing. We have also made representations on a number of other issues and will continue to do so.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Government do what no British Government have ever done and express regret about the first great genocide of the 20th century—the massacre of the Armenians? No apology has ever been given, but the matter is topical as the French Government have done precisely that. They have suffered the consequences, I know, but they have done the right thing. If we do not express regret, the evil words of Hitler, "Who now remembers the Armenians?" will be borne out as true. Are the Government prepared to express such regret and to express regret at the fact that no Turkish Government have ever given the slightest apology for the first great genocide of the 20th century?

Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman was in the House for the previous Foreign Office questions. I set out the policy then and it has not changed.

Oral Answers to Questions — Indonesia

Rev. Martin Smyth: What representations he has made to the Indonesian Government on forced conversions to Islam. [149708]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): Our embassy in Indonesia has made representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta on a number of occasions over the situation in the Moluccas. Recent evidence of forced conversions adds a worrying new dimension to the conflicts there and we shall continue to monitor events closely and make representations.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's concerns as two letters from constituents, who, like many people throughout the kingdom, are concerned about what is happening in Indonesia, arrived on my desk today. Is he aware that forced conversions include forced circumcision and female genital mutilation, often with blunt instruments and without anaesthetic, and has he drawn the matter to the attention of the Indonesian Government? I understand that such practices are against the laws of Indonesia, so surely the perpetrators should be brought to justice.

Mr. Battle: Yes. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen and persistent interest in the conflicts in the Moluccas and has made regular representations as a result of his excellent Church contacts there. We also receive information from Christian Solidarity and the Barnabas Fund, which have continued to alert the world to those atrocities.
The situation in the Moluccas has calmed down. The reasons for the conflict there are long standing, although communities had lived at peace for hundreds of years until 1999. We have raised those matters with the Indonesian authorities and, most recently, between 20 and 22 February, our ambassador participated in a European Union mission.
We were encouraged by the fact that the situation in north Maluku and in Ambon had calmed down over Christmas and over the Idul Fitri holidays and we can draw encouragement from the action taken by Ambon's governor, who has initiated three inter-faith missions to Kesui and Tioor islands, offering to evacuate Christians who are in fear of forced conversion. That is not an answer, however, so we shall continue to press the Indonesians, as I myself have done.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for raising this terrible matter. Has not the time come to point out to Governments who engage in such activities that, as they expect their people to have complete civil and religious liberty when they come to the United Kingdom, so we expect those Governments to practise that on their own citizens?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should read the laws of the new Indonesia, which has moved to democracy only in the past 18 months. The laws are in position, but sometimes we fail to understand the largeness and complexity of Indonesia, which has 218 million people, some 700 ethnic minorities and about 500 different languages scattered across 3,000 islands.
I think that the Indonesians are trying their best to get to grips with the situation. Obviously, it is up to their authorities to implement law and order; we shall exhort them to do so and assist them as best we can, but in the meantime we can contribute, and have contributed in small ways, to conflict resolution by negotiating to bring Christians and Muslims together at local level.

Oral Answers to Questions — Cyprus

Mr. Andrew Love: What progress has been made in the accession negotiations of Cyprus to the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [149711]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vat): Cyprus is making good progress in its accession negotiations with the European Union. It has provisionally closed 17 of the 31 chapters in the negotiations—more than any other candidate. I trust that Cyprus's current good performance on adoption and


implementation of EU legislation will continue. I look forward to discussing this and other matters during my visit to Cyprus in 10 days' time.

Mr. Love: I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his forthcoming visit, which is indeed the only way in which he can find out about the problem of Cyprus.
In the light of the recent statement by the EU enlargement commissioner reaffirming that there will be no separate negotiations for the Turkish-Cypriot community and that it is an absolute fiction that it will ever be able to join with Turkey, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity provided by his visit to urge Turkish. Cypriot community leaders to enter into negotiations, so that both communities can be satisfied with the outcome when Cyprus joins the European community?

Mr. Vaz: My hon. Friend is right: we shall secure a just and lasting settlement of this agonisingly difficult problem only if all sides come together in the talks. That is why we support what has been done by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, and give wholehearted backing to Sir David Hannay as he tries to deal with the difficulties.
Our message to the Cypriot community in this country is that the Government will continue to take their responsibilities seriously, and will support the on-going process. As for EU membership, we look forward to Cyprus joining as quickly as possible. I know from the work that my hon. Friend and others on both sides of the House have done over the past few years that the community here would welcome an early accession for Cyprus. We hope that this will act as a spur to the solving of what is, as I have said, an agonisingly difficult problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — Middle East

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east, following the Israeli prime ministerial election. [149713]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): The cycle of violence is undermining the confidence of both sides in the peace process. I am encouraged by Prime Minister-designate Sharon's statement that he plans to continue with the peace process, and to ease the conditions for Palestinians.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave his support to financial help for the Palestinian Authority at yesterday's EU General Affairs Council? Given the historic ties that exist between the United Kingdom and

both Arab countries and Israel, may we have the Government's continuing assurance that they will be even-handed in their initiatives to try to bring peace to the middle east—especially given that only a fortnight ago, in a democratic election, an overwhelming 62 per cent. gave power to Prime Minister-elect Sharon?

Mr. Wilson: I think that even-handedness—along with transparency—is the key to building and maintaining credibility. I am delighted that yesterday the EU approved the provision of £38 million for the Palestinian Authority: money that had been held in reserve is now being made available. Obviously, the economic health of the authority is very much part of the key, and I am pleased to note Prime Minister-designate Sharon's recognition of that since his election.

Mr. Jim Murphy: My hon. Friend will share our sadness at the apparent unravelling of the peace process over recent weeks, and the sadness felt by Labour Members, at least, at the defeat of Ehud Barak. As he is doubtless aware, there are some conciliatory signs, not least the fact that the Labour party in Israel has joined the national unity Government.
May I urge my hon. Friend to ensure, in his discussions with the partners in the middle east, that they put pressure on Chairman Arafat to be tough on some of the extremists, particularly those in Hamas? Will he also urge the Prime Minister-elect to honour and respect the wishes of the vast majority of Israeli and Palestinian people, so that we can have a lasting peace based on "land for peace"?

Mr. Wilson: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the vast majority of the Palestine and Israeli people want peace. That is usually the case in such conflicts. At present, every effort of everyone who has a contribution to make should be to ensure that the dialogue on peace is maintained and takes up where it left off, and that every door is kept open to dialogue.

Mr. Richard Spring: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment?
Given our historic links, is the hon. Gentleman aware of the disappointment that is widely felt in the middle east about Britain's lack of influence in the peace process? Does he realise that that is borne out by the embarrassing unwillingness of political leaders in the area to see the Prime Minister's personal envoy, Lord Levy?

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. There our accord ends. I find it sad that such a serious matter should be reduced to such a trivial level on the basis of some ridiculous inaccuracy, on a personalised basis. If that is all the Tory party has to offer a serious question such as the middle east peace process, heaven help the Tory party, never mind the rest of us.

Rail Passenger Services

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require railway passenger service providers to compensate passengers for late journeys and to ensure that passengers reach their ultimate rail destination.
I start with a quote from a piece in The Daily Telegraph of 21 February 2001, supplied to me by Jeremy Goodwin, who happens to be a student at Aberystwyth university, headed "Rail Revenge":
Pretoria's 91-year-old railway terminus has been extensively damaged after a mob of about 10,000 home-going commuters, angered by delays to train services caused by a series of signal failures, set it on fire.
My Bill is prompted by the same angry sentiments, but seeks a less inflammatory solution.
German and French trains are so reliable that one can set one's clock by them. That is not so in the United Kingdom. British rail travellers are so used to being late that we are sometimes relieved and occasionally even amazed when we get there on time. Twice I have been so delayed—once by Great Western Railways and once by Virgin Trains—that I have missed the responsibilities that I had to conduct in the House of Commons.
More recently, one of my Montgomeryshire constituents was horrendously delayed, by four hours, owing to the failures of the Northern Spirit service. Northern Spirit's whole approach on that occasion showed that it had little or no appreciation of its responsibility to minimise the inconvenience of those delays.
In fact, before the Hatfield accident, things were not as bad as they may seem to have been. The Strategic Rail Authority's figures suggest that, between April and October 2000, for example, long-distance cross-country services were on time, or within 10 minutes of being on time, 81 per cent. of the time. The problem is that, when trains are late, the compensation systems let us down, so that, on top of the annoyance of the delay, one enters into a bartering situation, where the compensation seems to be in proportion to how loud one can shout.
UK rail travel compensation is, in the eyes of many of its users, something of a lottery. Also, it seems that, on occasion, operators do not deliver their passengers to their destination. That happened to one of my members of staff the other night. She was left at a station late at night, alone. That is not safe and it is not fair. It certainly should not be for the passenger to have to plead with rail staff for some way to finish the journey home.
There is a basic principle at stake. As with any other transaction, if the service is defective or cancelled, the customer should reasonably be able to expect the supplier of that service to make good the deficiency. That is how it should be in relation to the railways. That is what my Bill seeks to do.
My Bill would objectify the compensation process and guarantee the delivery of customers to their destination. It would accomplish those goals very simply by ensuring that, for every minute that a customer was delayed, 1 per cent. of the ticket price was refunded. As the system would kick in only after a 20-minute delay, the minimum compensation would be 20 per cent. of the ticket price. Initially, I had suggested that the process should commence after a delay of only 10 minutes. However,

after representations From interested parties, I accept that such a system would be too strict and that the operators could be inundated with small claims. Additionally, as the rail passengers committee for Wales has pointed out, overly small claims could clog up the system and entail unreasonable administrative expense. I therefore think that 20 minutes is a reasonable starting point.
My Bill would also oblige operators to deliver their passengers to their destination, and not to leave them stranded in stations as a result of cancellations or missed connections. In other words, operators would absolutely and positively have to get their customers to their destination, if not on time, at least eventually. None of those proposals is rocket science. They would simply bring the rail system roughly into line with the way in which we operate in most other spheres in which customer and supplier enter contract—which is what happens when one buys a ticket.
Eurostar has proveed that such a system really can work. Eurostar's compensation system operates so that, if one is delayed for between 61 and 180 minutes, a voucher is issued for a free single journey. If one is delayed for more than 181 minutes, a 100 per cent. money refund is made for the delayed part of the journey. However, compensation is paid only when the delay was within Eurostar's control. I believe that that condition is reasonable, and it is not very different from what I am proposing. That condition also demonstrates that such a compensation system can run in tandem with a professional and profitable rail business.
I am therefore asking Ministers to accept the principle of such a system and to enter into a dialogue on it with passengers and rail operators, with the goal of creating an objective compensation system and a guarantee of arrival at the destination.
I accept that various issues will have to be thought through, such as who will pay when two rail operators both contribute to a delay. Additionally, what will happen when Railtrack is responsible for a delay? Will passengers claim compensation from the operator, who will subsequently work out appropriate compensation with Railtrack? Conversely, when would it be unfair to make operators pay for lateness? Would it be unfair to expect compensation if there had been a natural disaster? I should say that, by natural disaster, I do not mean leaves on the line, but earthquakes, flooding, or even the remote possibility of an asteroid taking out a large proportion of the British rail system.
There are probably other matters that I have not thought of that will have to be tidied up. However, the principle behind my proposals is simple enough: compensation proportionate to the delay and a guarantee of arrival—if not by railway then by other means—are the organisational responsibility of the operator.
I hope that the Government will commence that dialogue to examine what we can do to create such a system. I also assure the House that my proposals are not intended to punish the rail operators or as a way of hitting them over the head just because we are unhappy with the service. My proposals are intended simply to make sure that we have a system which ensures that, when consumers have bought the service of being delivered somewhere on time, they are compensated when their valuable time is lost.
I believe that if Ministers commit to those two principles, passengers everywhere will be very grateful. I also believe that such a system would take the lottery out of the current compensation system, which is so frustrating for those who have to negotiate with rail operators who have not delivered the purchased service. Best of all, such a system would also end the worry of being abandoned in the middle of nowhere because a train has been terminated far from home.
I am not looking for victories over the rail services, but for a sensible, common-sense system that everyone can understand and a process that every railway user can initiate. Such a system would also avoid the potential for frayed tempers when, very reasonably, passengers request a refund because Britain's rail service network has not achieved the standards that we would all expect it to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lembit Öpik, Mr. David Chidgey, Mr. Bob Russell, Mr. Adrian Sanders, Mr. Brian Cotter, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. David Heath, Mr. David Rendel and Mr. Richard Livsey.

RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES

Mr. Lembit Öpik: accordingly presented a Bill to require railway passenger service providers to compensate passengers for late journeys and to ensure that passengers reach their ultimate rail destination And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March, and to be printed.[Bill 52].

Points of Order

Mr. John Gummer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware of the serious situation in the countryside as a result of foot and mouth disease. Almost every constituency is affected. Have you received any application from the Government to vary the business of the House for today? The debate that we are about to begin is singularly inappropriate for people who have been affected by the disease, as it is about a matter that has concerned them very deeply. I am sure that they would feel that the House would be displaying greater responsibility if we were to leave the subject, at least for today.

Mr. Speaker: The point that the right hon. Gentleman raises is not a matter for the Chair. However, I am sure that his concerns will be duly noted.

Sir Patrick Cormack: On a slightly different point of order, Mr. Speaker. During questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday, when Madam Deputy Speaker was in the Chair, I asked for an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman would keep the House informed while the foot and mouth disease outbreak continued. He replied, quite specifically, "No, I will not." Are you prepared to deprecate that statement, Mr. Speaker, and to ask the Minister to think again? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. It is for the Minister to make his replies. I have no control over the way in which the Minister replies in the House.

Mr. Simon Thomas: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Foot and mouth disease has been confirmed on the Isle of Anglesey, and there are suspected cases in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). Thousands of visitors from Ireland on their way to Cardiff for Saturday's rugby union international are expected to travel through Anglesey and by routes to the south of my constituency. Have the Government given you any indication that they will give a further statement to the House to give leadership and guidance to agencies, Government Departments and quangos as to how problems arising from the foot and mouth outbreak should be dealt with? My constituency office is being inundated by questions from members of the public seeking guidance.

Mr. Speaker: Once again, I must say that this is not a matter for me. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be noted.

Hunting Bill (Programme)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20th December 2000 (as amended on 17th January 2001 and 8th February 2001):

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in one day on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.

2. On that day—

(1) proceedings on Consideration shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock, and
(2) proceedings on Third Reading shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Twelve o'clock.

3. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

4. In the application to proceedings on Consideration of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000, paragraph (2)(d) shall have effect as if it required the Speaker to put—

(1) a single question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of rabbits and on any amendments in the name of a Minister of the Crown which are consequential on that amendment;
(2) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of deer-stalking and flushing;
(3) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which expands the defence in respect of the hunting of rodents;
(4) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of mink; and
(5) a single question on any other amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

5. Paragraph (4) of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration.

Lords Amendments and Messages

6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(1) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or
(2) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords;

and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

I can be brief, as the motion before us is simple enough and I am keen to get on with the substantive debates on this Bill. Essentially, the motion provides that Report stage should run until 10 pm tonight and be followed immediately by Third Reading. That is by no means an odd or unusual way to proceed. I reject the suggestion, implicit in the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), that insufficient time is being allowed to consider the Bill.
The Bill is not long. It does not fill even seven pages. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) said in Committee that it was
after all, a very short Bill".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 8 February 2001; c. 442.]
Not only that but, unusually, the whole House has had two opportunities to debate the issues—on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House.
The Bill was extensively debated in Standing Committee. Indeed, the Committee sat on 15 occasions and the Government even extended its proceedings at the request of the official Opposition. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) led for the Opposition in Committee, and he took a very constructive view of the length of time allowed for debate. In the initial debate in the Programming Sub-Committee, the hon. Gentleman accepted the Government motion without seeking to amend it. In return, the Government did not think unreasonable his request for an extra day in Committee, and we agreed to it. I understand that no other request was made for a substantial amount of extra time in Committee.
We had some good debates in Committee. Although some speeches were a little on the long side I thought that, on balance, the debate was very constructive and enormously well informed as a result of the Burns report. I regret, however, that despite the extension of time that we provided, we were not able to deal with all the amendments that had been tabled.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and also for making provision in the voting procedure tonight for us to deal with amendments in response to points that I made about deer stalking and about rabbits and rats. However, the programme motion does not allow for the new Government amendments to be the subject of debate in any protected way. We might reach 10 o'clock and have to vote on the amendments without having the opportunity of assessing whether they meet the case that was put in Committee, as the Minister has tried to do.

Mr. O'Brien: I certainly hope that the House will be able to manage its affairs. I have no wish to impose unreasonable deadlines or time scales on the House. In my view, our propcsals are entirely reasonable. The programme motion allows the House some leeway in terms of the time that it allows to discuss the various issues.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I should like to finish answering the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) first.
I think that the programme motion is reasonable. I do not want to have specific times allocated for debate on amendments. It is the Government's view that we have identified some of the key issues that were raised in Committee and in respect of which I felt that it was important for the House as a whole to take a view. May I make it very clear that that does not mean that the Government are asking the House to vote on all the amendments? It is the Government's view that our amendments cover the key issues arising out of the


debates in Committee that need to be debated by the House as a whole. Therefore, although they are Government amendments, they have been tabled to facilitate debate. The Government's position is not to support or oppose any of these amendments. I have a view on them, and will no doubt be able to express my views on some. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed may find that my position is not too far from his on some points.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will give way first to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as I promised.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are to have a fairly free debate and that the Government do not have a distinct view. That being so, is it not yet more important that the House should have an opportunity to vote? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if we were to vote on but three or four groups of amendments, which is not unreasonable, the time taken for that would come out of the substantive time available? That will make it even less likely that we get to the important groups of amendments towards the end of the selection list.

Mr. O'Brien: I want to ensure that we have sufficient time to have reasonable debates on these issues, and I think that the programme motion allows precisely that. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues, who take a particular view on these matters, had managed the time in Committee a little better, we might have been able to ensure that we got through issues in a more expeditious but sensible way.
Let me offer some observations: during the Committee's deliberations, the Chairman had to call representatives of the official Opposition to order on no fewer than 52 occasions because they were straying beyond the terms of an amendment under discussion. I do not accuse them of filibustering, because the Chairman would have brought them to order very quickly if they had been. I accuse them simply of being not quite on the point on many occasions. Indeed, on one occasion, the Chairman was moved to state:
I have made it abundantly clear on several occasions that dilation in debates is becoming excessive and repetitious."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 2001; c. 286.]
Right hon. and hon. Members can draw their own conclusions from that. I hope that we will not have excessive and repetitious dilation this afternoon—then we can reach the issues that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues wish to ensure we debate.
Finally, let me deal with the ridiculous suggestion from the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that only those of us who represent English or Welsh constituencies should be allowed to participate in Divisions on the Bill—[Interruption.] That seems to be his view. I understand the attractiveness of that suggestion for a member of a political party that was so decisively rejected by the voters of Scotland at the general election, but I remind the House of the points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made when dealing with this issue on Second Reading.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly derive from this Parliament. Those Parliaments are palpably subordinate to this one and their powers can be rescinded at any stage by this Parliament—although I am not advocating any such course. This is a sovereign Parliament and it is the right of every Member of it to participate in its proceedings, subject to earlier legislation. The arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would have carried slightly more conviction if the Conservative party had ever objected in the past to the fact that hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies regularly went into the Lobby with them despite the existence of the Stormont Parliament.

Mr. James Gray: rose—

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, but then I shall conclude my remarks.

Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In the Standing Committee, he conducted the Government's business with considerable calmness and in a reasonable spirit. I hope that he will not depart from that conduct on Report. I think that he made a false point when he was dealing with the 52 admonishments from the Chair. If he analyses the speeches that were being made on those occasions, he will find that there was no flagrant abuse of the time of the Committee. If he then translates my point about the Committee to the 11 groups of amendments tabled today, he will find that it is not unreasonable to complain that the amount of time allotted is insufficient. A huge number of amendments and groups of amendments—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention has gone beyond an intervention.

Mr. Garnier: May I complete the point?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman can complete the point at some other time.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Excessive dilation on a particular issue has just been demonstrated, so I do not need to deal with that matter further.

Mr. John Bercow: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid the argument that every Member should have a right to contribute. Does he not realise that, by saying that, he hoists himself with his own petard? Earlier in his speech, he argued that substantial consideration of the issues in Committee necessitated—or at least justified—circumscription of debate on Report. Does he not realise that many right hon. and hon. Members did not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee? Nor were they able to contribute on their constituents' behalf on important and detailed issues on Second Reading. They want to make their voices heard this afternoon.

Mr. O'Brien: Again, that was a rather lengthy intervention. As I understand it, that Standing Committee


was one of the largest ever appointed to consider a Bill. That extension was made at the request of the Opposition. We did so in order to ensure that there was a fair amount of debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is replying to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but the hon. Gentleman is not giving the Minister a hearing.

Mr. O'Brien: The Committee had a fair amount of time to debate the issues. The programme motion provides us with ample time to consider the Bill, given the large amount of debate held already—

Mr. Edward Leigh: rose—

Sir Peter Emery: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: If hon. Members on both sides of the House adopt a constructive attitude, I see no reason why we should not be able to deal with all the tabled amendments in the time provided.

Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: When I gave way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), I indicated that I should not be giving way again.

Sir Peter Emery: I have tried to get in—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Brien: I said that I would give way to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who speaks from the Conservative Front Bench. I then gave way a second time, and I will not give way again. We need to debate the Bill. Some hon. Members may well want to make lengthy interventions and have lengthy debates that do not deal with the issues. People in the countryside expect the Opposition to deal with the issues, and I am ready to do so, so let us now get on and debate them.

Mr. David Lidington: I object to the programme motion on two counts. First, any dispassionate or independent-minded observer who looked in on the proceedings of the House this afternoon would regard the Government's decision to set aside the entire day to debate a ban on hunting with hounds as demonstrating a sense of priorities that verges on the surreal. British farmers are now facing what anyone with a reasonable turn of mind—whatever his or her view on the Bill—would recognise as by far the gravest crisis that has faced British agriculture and this country's rural economy for at least half a century. To spend hours debating a ban on hunting today displays what I can only regard as a warped sense of priorities.

Mr. John Gummer: Did not my hon. Friend notice that despite the reminder of the point of order, the Minister did not take the opportunity to

associate himself with the views that most of us have about the seriousness of this occasion? Is not it surprising that a Bill that assaults the sentiments of most people in the countryside has been introduced on a day when the countryside is reeling from yet another blow? Is not it time for the Government to learn a little respect for the countryside?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion, and those matters cannot be discussed during this debate. The right hon. Gentleman has made his point. I understand the difficulties that people in the countryside have at the moment, but the debate on the programme motion is not the time to discuss them.

Mr. Lidington: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my right hon. Friend's questions, I simply say that I agree with every word that he has said, but we are faced, sadly, with the fact that the Government have decided to insist on debating this Bill today.
My second reason for opposing the motion will unite every member of the official Opposition, whatever view he or she takes on the Bill's merits or demerits. As on every occasion when hunting has been debated, my right hon. and hon. Friends will have a free vote not only on the various amendments that we shall consider on Report, but on Third Reading later tonight. Although the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends share my opposition to the Bill, there is a distinguished minority in my party who have, for honourable reasons over a long time, supported such a ban, and they will, as always, enjoy a completely free vote in any Division. However, the Opposition will, as a matter of principle, oppose the motion, as we have opposed other programme motions since the habit of the routine guillotine was introduced at the beginning of this Session. We have made our opposition to the principle of such programme motions clear on numerous occasions, including in the meetings of the Programming Sub-Committee, to which the Minister referred However, as we know, no record is kept of the proceedings of those meetings so Members are not accountable in the way that they are if they speak in the Chamber.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Has my hon. Friend noted that the Government consistently say that they are upholders of liberty and protectors of minorities? If they truly believe what they say, should they not, on this and any other issue of conscience, allow a full debate until any hour and not use a guillotine? A guillotine is an affront to democracy and to liberty.

Mr. Lidington: I Agree with my hon. Friend. The very idea of a programme motion is particularly unwelcome and inapposite in the case of a Bill that divides Members in all political parties and on which there will be a free vote. I cannot say on behalf of the Conservative party that we collectively support or disagree with particular amendments or particular details in the Bill. Every individual Member of the House must, in conscience, reach a decision about each of the groups of amendments before us and about Third Reading. They must then speak and vote accordingly. It is therefore a particularly inappropriate Bill for a programme motion.
As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, the motion has been drafted in such a way as to protect the right of the House to take separate


decisions on each of the main categories of Government amendments. However, as he also said, the motion does not protect the right of the House to debate those Government amendments. Certainty, no protection whatever is given to Back Benchers to ensure that their amendments are discussed in any length at all.

Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the programme motion is doubly surreal, and not just for the reasons that he gave earlier? I thought that such motions were usually tabled when a Government wanted to get their Bills enacted in the face of fierce, official opposition. However, it is apparent from the Bill' s timing—it was the first to be introduced and it will be he last to go to the other place—that the Government do not want it to become law. Why are we having this doubly surreal programme motion? Can my hon. Friend explain what is going on?

Mr. Lidington: I wish that I could explain to my hon. Friend the Government's machinations in handling the Bill. As he implied, it is clear that even if the Bill is considered in an exceptionally speedy fashion in the House of Lords, it cannot complete all its stages in both Houses before the expected general election in April or May. One is therefore tempted to assume that the Government are engaged in a charade in an attempt to impress some of their own Back Benchers and some of the animal rights groups to which the Labour party has looked both for support and for money in the recent past.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Would not the best interests of the countryside and all those who support countryside issues be served if we were to truncate the debate and have a Division within the next few minutes? We could then Proceed to discuss amendments. The Gallery is full, the country is watching and people want to hear the debate on the amendments so that Parliament can decide. Why do we not get on with that right away?

Mr. Lidington: The best service the hon. Gentleman could perform for the countryside would be to support the Opposition in the Lobby in trying to reject this programme motion. That would enable the House to proceed at the pace it considers appropriate to discuss all the groups of amendments that are before us.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would willingly do that, but there is a problem: if we do not proceed on the basis of the programme motion, Conservative Mumbers will filibuster throughout the night and wreck the Bill, when what the public want is for us and the other place to reach a decision. Why does not the hon. Gentleman just concede my case?

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentle man is frustrated by the fact that the Bill illustrates the problem that far too little time is being allotted to scrutinise and debate legislation. Programme motions are an impressive procedural device that Governments use to try to constrain Parliament's ability to scrutinise legislation. They allow them to ram through as many Bills as they choose.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The Government have a massive majority, a mandate and

another year to go, but, instead of staying in government for that extra year, they are going to cut and run and go to the country early. Is it not the simple truth that that is why they are subjecting Parliament to a draconian and dictatorial series of programme motions?

Mr. Lidington: I not only agree with my hon. Friend, but think that even Labour Members would do themselves some good by taking his comments seriously. He has been consistent in his criticism of the way in which successive Governments of both parties have treated the House of Commons and has championed the rights of Back Benchers during his years in this place.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to the fact that the measure is not party political and has been trumpeted by the Government as something on which we have a free vote? A programme motion imposes on Back-Bench Members of Parliament a restriction that I cannot recall being imposed while I have been a Member of Parliament. We should be entirely free to debate the Bill for as long as necessary. The Minister seems to have missed the curious fact that he is stopping Back Benchers from speaking on a Bill on which he admits that there is a free vote on both sides of the House.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. Friend is correct. The Minister let it slip that he was unwilling to face up to the limitations that the motion imposes on the rights of Back Benchers. In praising the part of the motion that allows for separate votes on the main Government amendments, he said that Standing Committee debates had allowed the Government to identify the key issues. I agree that the Government amendments cover some of the key issues that arose from those discussions, but, as there is a free vote on the Bill, it is plainly wrong for debate to be constrained by their views on what constitutes the chief issues that are worthy of discussion and Division. On such a Bill, Back Benchers have as much right to have a say as Front Benchers and, if necessary, to insist on Divisions on issues about which they feel strongly.
My right hon. Friend will no doubt recall from our Standing Committee debates that the Bill is in great need of thorough, detailed and meticulous scrutiny. Many ambiguities and uncertainties still need to be explored.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend take up the argument of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who said that, having analysed consideration in Committee, he had gone to great trouble to identify the issues that he felt should be brought to the House on Report? There are 68 amendments in 11 groups, and the hon. Gentleman is not ensuring that the issues that he considers should be debated will be debated. We shall have only five and a half hours of debate. If he thinks that we shall get through the 11 groups of amendments that have been selected in that time, given that many Members who were not in Committee are vitally affected in their constituencies by the Bill, he is in "Alice in Wonderland". There is no need for such a programme motion.

Mr. Lidington: I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. He brings to bear his experience as a senior Member of this place and as a former Chairman of the Procedure Committee. We are right to listen with attention to his criticisms on issues of procedure.
I was referring to the way in which the Committee flushed out, if I may so put it, some of the inherent ambiguities and uncertainties in the Bill. Some of them arose because individual Members had a constituency or other interest in certain details in the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) has been a consistent supporter of the need to control mink. She put the Government under great pressure on that issue. No doubt one Government amendment is in large measure a response to what the hon. Lady said in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, like myself, raised issues connected with deer stalking. It was astonishing that on the final day in Committee— the additional day that the Government offered the Opposition, as it became clear that the time provided in their original programme motion was inadequate—the Government admitted that the Bill would prohibit the stalking and flushing out of deer, even though that was not the Government's intention. I found it extraordinary that after the Bill had been drafted in the Home Office, scrutinised in the Home Office, presented on Second Reading and taken through Committee, it was discovered in Committee that the Bill meant something different from what Ministers asserted they wished it to mean.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Bill as drafted would prevent rabbiting in its traditional form? Hence the need for amendment No. 49 and the amendments that stand in my name.

Mr. Lidington: We need later this afternoon to discuss matters relating to rabbits and rodent control. However, there are other ambiguities, which were demonstrated as a result of scrutiny in Committee. I contend that they demonstrate beyond doubt that there is a need for further rigorous scrutiny on Report and during further stages of the Bill's passage.
In February, the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), said:
The hon. Member for Aylesbury"—
that is myself—
asked if we intend to outlaw them"—
that is, Welsh gun packs. The hon. Lady said that
the straight answer is no: gun packs can fall within the exceptions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 6 February 2001; c. 386.]
Those of us who heard the Minister re-read the Bill and remained unconvinced that the Government's intent and policy were delivered by the words in the Bill in Committee.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten it, but I sent him a letter yesterday saying that Deadline 2000 initially wanted deer stalking to be included in the Bill. I should make it clear that the parliamentary draftsmen complied with the policy set out by Deadline 2000, which is now content that deer stalking should be taken out of the Bill. I do not want the hon. Gentleman in any way to traduce the parliamentary draftsmen, as I am sure he would not wish to.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your long and distinguished service

to the House of Commons, can you remember a Government ever having subcontracted another organisation—called, in this case, Deadbeat 2000—to write Government legislation? Can you recall such a thing, and is that a proper way to carry on?

Mr. Speaker: I have forgotten lots of things over my time in Parliament.

Mr. Lidington: I wish to make no imputation against the conduct of the parliamentary draftsmen or civil servants, who, in my experience, obey the instructions of Ministers. One of the most unsatisfactory points about our proceedings has been that we have made repeated criticisms of the detail of the schedule only for Ministers to resort to saying that the Bill had been drafted not by them, but by Deadline 2000. They could not, therefore, explain or justify its ambiguities or the apparent gap between the Government's political intent and the wording produced by their subcontractors, Deadline 2000.

Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible to reconcile the statements made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the effect that he subcontracted the policy with what is written on the back of the Bill, which tells us that it was presented by the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and other rogues?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hogg: Yes, yes, I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was about to say that we are going beyond the programme motion before us.

Mr. Lidington: My previous point was perhaps the most serious concern felt on both sides of the Standing Committee about the inadequacy of the Government's response to the many detailed questions asked during our proceedings. It demonstrates the need for further debate without the imposition of the artificial time limit that we are being forced to consider.
The motion is a Government attempt to constrain debate and limit discussion to the priorities that the Government consider appropriate. The motion amounts to a disgraceful attempt to gag Back-Bench Members and prevent the House from exercising its duty to scrutinise the Bill, question the Ministers responsible for it and hold the Government to account for the new criminal penalties and duties that they seek to impose on our fellow citizens. It is a thoroughly bad motion, and I advise my hon. Friends to resist it.

Mr. Paul Tyler: It is a tragic irony that we are debating this matter this afternoon. This morning, I had a telephone conversation with a farmer at St. Issey in the centre of my constituency, which is likely to be subject to restrictions as a result of a nearby foot and mouth outbreak. The farmer asked me what the House of Commons would be doing today to help him. I had to say that, for the first part of the afternoon, we would be discussing the timing of the debate that would take place later. He asked what the subject of the later debate was, and I had to admit to him that it was the Hunting Bill.
Whatever one's personal views, no one can pretend that the House of Commons is doing its duty by the countryside, the rural community and all the people—

Mr. Soames: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I will not give way; I want to be as brief as possible. The farmer was incredulous that we would be spending time either on the programme motion or on the Bill this afternoon. He said, "Surely my representatives in Parliament are more concerned about the things that concern the real people of the countryside." I know of no one in any rural area, except on the extremes, who thinks that the Bill is the most important issue to bring before the House.
I shall not repeat the comments of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) about the programme motion, except to emphasise a point that he made in the latter part of his speech. The Bill is unusual because hon. Members of all parties take differing attitudes to it. At least three options have been before Parliament. Even if those on the three Front Benches could agree a programme motion, that would have been entirely inappropriate, because it is not a matter for those on the Front Benches or for the usual channels. It is a matter for the House as a whole, and it is therefore extremely important that we examine the programme motion carefully.
I am sure that the Minister meant well when he said that he did not want to restrict or compartmentalise the parts of the Bill, but major issues will come before the House, some of them introduced by the Government only at this stage, and they will not be properly debated before being voted on. It is not good enough to say that the issues have been agreed between the two sides of the House. Nothing about the Bill is agreed between the two sides of the House, because there are not two sides. There are many sides, and if there had to be a programme motion at all, it should have been generous in time and should have allowed adequate space for each issue to be addressed properly.
That was the proper reason for introducing programme motions in the first place. The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) has always been in favour of a sensible division of debates, to ensure that all hon. Members can express their views to the House and divide on them. The programme motion does not allow for that. The issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Committee and again this afternoon will come before the House for the first time—

Mr. Mike O'Brien: rose—

Mr. Tyler: I shall not give way. I want to be as quick as possible. I find it extraordinary that on an issue that has presumably been considered at extreme length in Whitehall, the Home Office has failed until now to acknowledge that there were major inadequacies in the Bill. One would have thought that even the Home Office realised that there was a possible anomaly concerning rodents, rabbits and deer stalking in the Bill as first drafted.
It is helpful, I suppose, that there will be time for Divisions, but every minute spent on a Division is time out of the subsequent debate. That will be especially true

at 10 o'clock. We should have provided time for Divisions without reducing the time for debate. I pressed the Leader of the House at business questions a fortnight ago to provide us with adequate time for Third Reading. Again, it will be the first opportunity for many hon. Members to discuss the issues that have arisen during the Bill's passage through Committee. If, however, there are several votes on Government amendments at 10 o'clock, that will necessarily curtail the time available for Third Reading. The programme motion should have provided for a two-hour debate on Third Reading, over and above the time allowed for Divisions.
It is crazy of the Government to prepare a programme motion before they even know the number of amendments, how significant they are, and which ones will be selected by the Speaker. The programme motion is wholly inadequate. It belies the Government's claim to take seriously the concerns of the countryside. Whatever one's views of the Bill—there are differing views in all parts of the House—the motion is a disgrace.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I should like to endorse everything that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) said in his brief but powerful speech. Historians have a habit of referring to Parliaments by various names—the long Parliament, the short Parliament and the addled Parliament. This will go down in history as the abused Parliament, because it has been systematically abused by the Executive in a manner for which there is no adequate precedent.
I have frequently had cause to take issue with Governments formed by my party, but never have we seen such overbearing arrogance as that witnessed during the past four years, and never has such arrogance been better exemplified than this afternoon. At a time when the countryside is bleeding, the Government bring before us a Bill for which there is no need. They are doing so for the reasons that I described in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), and it is utterly disgraceful that they are behaving in this manner.

Mr. Hogg: Actually, it is the self-abused Parliament, because the Government majority is ramming through these gagging measures.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We could say also that Labour Members are allowing it to be the supine Parliament, but the fact of the matter is—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) may be laughing, but this is an extremely serious matter for anyone who cares about Parliament, as it is being systematically denigrated by this Government. Its powers are being eroded and set at nought, and the Government are using their steamroller majority to ignore the views of hon. Members of all parties.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall was completely accurate: this is not a Bill on which there are party positions. Even on my own Front Bench, it is not surprising that there are certain differences of opinion within the Home Office team—views that are honestly and conscientiously held. I happen to agree foursquare with the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, who spoke so admirably, but there are others on this side of the House—one has come in recently—who take a different view.

It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 175.

Division No. 130]
[4.27 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cranston, Ross


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allen, Graham
Cummings, John


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


(Swansea E)
(Copeland)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Atherton, Ms Candy
Darvill, Keith


Austin, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bailey, Adrian
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
(B'ham Hodge H)


Begg, Miss Anne
Dean, Mrs Janet


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Denham, Rt Hon John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dismore, Andrew


Benton, Joe
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Best, Harold
Doran, Frank


Betts, Clive
Drew, David


Blackman, Liz
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Flint, Caroline


Browne, Desmond
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike



Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cann, Jamie
Godsiff, Roger


Caplin, Ivor
Goggins, Paul


Casale, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin


Caton, Martin
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Chaytor, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Grocott, Bruce



Clark, Dr Lynda
Grogan, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gunnell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clwyd, Ann
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coaker, Vernon
Hendrick, Mark


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John


Coleman, Iain
Hesford, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cooper, Yvette
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)





Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hurst, Alan
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jamieson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Joyce, Eric
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quinn, Lawrie


Keeble, Ms Sally
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kidney, David
Rogers, Allan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rowlands, Ted


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lammy, David
Ruane, Chris


Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Love, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan



McAllion, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McAvoy, Thomas
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McCabe, Steve
Singh, Marsha


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Skinner, Dennis



Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McDonnell, John
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Snape, Peter


McIsaac, Shona
Southworth, Ms Helen


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


MacShane, Denis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stringer, Graham


Mallaber, Judy
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)



Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)



Martlew, Eric
Timms, Stephen


Merron, Gillian
Tipping, Paddy


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Todd, Mark


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Trickett, Jon


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Truswell, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Mitchell, Austin
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)



Moffatt, Laura
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Morley, Elliot
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tynan, Bill



Walley, Ms Joan


Mudie, George
Ward, Ms Claire


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Wareing, Robert N


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wicks, Malcolm






Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Tony (Cannock)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wyatt, Derek


Wills, Michael



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. Jim Dowd and


Woolas, Phil
Mr. Don Touhig.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Allan, Richard
Green, Damian


Amess, David
Greenway, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hague, Rt Hon William


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Baker, Norman
Hammond, Philip


Baldry, Tony
Hancock, Mike


Ballard, Jackie
Harris, Dr Evan


Beggs, Roy
Harvey, Nick


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hawkins, Nick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hayes, John


Bercow, John
Heald, Oliver


Beresford, Sir Paul
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Blunt, Crispin
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Boswell, Tim
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Horam, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Brady, Graham
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Brake, Tom
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Brand, Dr Peter
Jenkin, Bemard


Brazier, Julian

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Breed, Colin



Browning, Mrs Angela
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Burnett, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burns, Simon
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burstow, Paul
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui



Lansley, Andrew


Cash, William
Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chidgey, David
Lidington, David


Chope, Christopher
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Loughton, Tim


Collins, Tim
Luff, Peter


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cotter, Brian
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Curry, Rt Hon David
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Madel, Sir David


Day, Stephen
Major Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
Malins, Humfrey


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maples, John


Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Faber, David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Fabricant, Michael
May, Mrs Theresa
May, Mrs Theresa


Fallon, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fearn, Ronnie
Moore, Michael


Flight, Howard
Moss, Malcolm


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Nicholls, Patrick



Foster, Don (Bath)
Norman, Archie


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Oaten, Mark


Fox, Dr Liam
Öpik, Lembit


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Richard


Garnier, Edward
Paice, James


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gibb, Nick
Paterson, Owen


Gill, Christopher
Pickles, Eric


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Prior, David





Redwood, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rendel, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Robathan, Andrew
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tredinnick, David


Ruffley, David
Trend, Michael


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tyler, Paul


St Aubyn, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Sanders, Adrian
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Walter, Robert


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Webb, Steve


Shepherd, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Whittingdale, John


Soames, Nicholas
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilkinson, John


Spicer, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Spring, Richard
Willis, Phil


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Steen, Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Stunell, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Mr. James Gray.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Hunting Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20th December 2000 (as amended on 17th January 2001 and 8th February 2001):

Consideration and Third Reading

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in one day on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.

2. On that day—

(1) proceedings on Consideration shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock, and
(2) proceedings on Third Reading shall (unless previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Twelve o'clock.

3. Sessional Order B (Programming Committees) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

4. In the application to proceedings on Consideration of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000, paragraph (2)(d) shall have effect as if it required the Speaker to put—

(1) a single question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of rabbits and on any amendments in the name of a Minister of the Crown which are consequential on that amendment;
(2) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of deer-stalking and flushing;
(3) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which expands the defence in respect of the hunting of rodents;
(4) the question on any amendment in the name of a Minister of the Crown which creates a defence in respect of the hunting of mink; and
(5) a single question on any other amendments moved or motions made by a Minister of the Crown.

5. Paragraph (4) of Sessional Order E made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration.

Lords Amendments and Messages

6. Paragraphs (6) and (7) of Sessional Order A (varying and supplementing programme motions) made by the House on 7th November 2000 shall not apply to proceedings on any programme motion to supplement this order or to vary it in relation to—

(1) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, or
(2) proceedings on any further messages from the Lords; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Hunting Bill

As amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1

DISPOSAL OF FALLEN STOCK

'.—(1) Not later than 6 months after the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the collection and disposal of infirm, diseased and dead agricultural animals (in this section referred to as "fallen stock") which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.

(2) A scheme shall regulate—

(a) the method of the collection and disposal of fallen stock,
(b) procedures for the notification to the Secretary of State of the whereabouts of fallen stock and the requirements for its prompt collection and disposal,
(c) any charges which may be imposed for the collection and disposal of fallen stock, provided always that such charges shall meet the cost of the scheme and no more.

(3) In order to fulfill his obligations under subsection (2) the Secretary of State may appoint agents to act on his behalf on a regional or national basis.

(4) A scheme under this section shall apply in all of England and Wales.

(5) Before making a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to have an interest in such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.

(6) The Secretary o State shall publish widely in appropriate journals the details of any scheme under this section.

(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Garnier.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 36, in the schedule, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

'.— (1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payment to persons in respect of losses incurred by them as a result of—

(a) ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act—

(i) to carry on their businesses so far as they consist of activities prohibited by this Act, or
(ii) to continue in paid employment so far as that employment vas dependent on activities prohibited by this Act;

(b) damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act.

(2) A scheme may, in particular—

(a) specify the descriptions of losses and businesses in respect of which payments are, or are not, to be made and the basis of valuation for determining losses,
(b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,


(c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims,
(d) include provision for arbitration of any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under the scheme or the amounts of any such payments.

(3) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent persons likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme.

(4) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 40, in page 7, line 14, at end insert—

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons—

(a) whose business or employment is materially affected (whether by a reduction in profits or the incurring of losses) by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act, or
(b) who are deprived of any services previously provided by hunts and as a result incur and are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses which would not have been incurred but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.

(2) A scheme shall, in particular specify—

(a) the manner in which losses, costs, expenses or reduction in profits may be calculated, and
(b) the evidence which may be reasonably required to show the losses, costs, expenses or reduction in profits calculated in accordance with this paragraph.

(3) A scheme shall also, in particular—

(a) specify the basis of valuation for determining losses,
(b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,
(c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including the time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.

(4) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.

(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies to any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under a scheme or the amounts of any such payments which—

(a) has not been resolved within nine months of the day on which the original decision as to entitlement or amounts was notified in writing to the person concerned by the Secretary of State, and
(b) has not been referred by agreement to arbitration.

(6) The dispute shall be referred by the Secretary of State to such appellate body as he deems appropriate by order.

(7) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(8) In this paragraph—
losses" includes losses of income and losses of capital;
materially affected" means a reduction in profit or the incurring of losses, costs or expenses which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.'.

Mr. Garnier: So begins consideration of the Bill following our deliberations in Committee upstairs. I am grateful to the junior Ministers from the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department for their presence here to assist us. It is perhaps worth pointing out at the outset,

however, that today is a black day for British agriculture—a black day in a black fortnight. There appears to be no sign of the problems caused by the foot and mouth outbreak lifting in the next few days or weeks, so it might have been more appropriate, even though the Bill was introduced by the Home Office, for an Agriculture Minister to respond to the debate, particularly on the new clause.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made it plain that he did not think it proper for him to attend on this place.

Mr. Garnier: Irrespective of what that Minister said yesterday, and rather than rely on the efforts of the two junior Ministers, it might have been more appropriate for one of his deputies to be with us, at least to assist in our debates.
Amendment No. 36 stands in the names of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and I leave it to one of them to speak to it. Amendment No. 40, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), deals with compensation.
I shall briefly discuss the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to put in place an alternative scheme for the collection and disposal of farmers' fallen stock in the absence of the hunts that currently carry out that service. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know, a further agricultural benefit to farmers, in addition to that of pest control, is provided by hunting with dogs.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Hounds!

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend complains about my use of the word "dogs". He will understand, however, that I use that generic term to make our debates more understandable to Labour Members. I hope that he also understands that I include hounds within it. As the Chairman said in Committee, no doubt he will have an opportunity to dilate on that particular semantic discussion.
4.45 pm
The collection from farms of fallen stock—that is, unsaleable dead farm animals—or the humane killing and collection of injured or sick animals, known as casualty stock, is an extremely important service. Those of us who represent farming constituencies—and, indeed, others who do not, but who have some knowledge of the rural economy—will appreciate that, nature being what it is, farm animals die. They die in abattoirs, obviously, because they are moved through abattoirs to get into the human food chain, but, sadly, they also die on farms. Were it not for the activities of many hunts in England and Wales—the jurisdiction that the Bill will cover—and in Scotland and, I dare say, Northern Ireland, the farming economy would be under even more strain.

Mr. James Gray: The importance of hunts in collecting fallen stock is perhaps emphasised by


the example of the Avon Vale hunt in my constituency. It is a mile away from Bromham, where a case of foot and mouth disease was confirmed yesterday. I understand that Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials have been in touch with the hunt with the intention of introducing better arrangements, so that it can still pick up dead stock and have dead stock delivered to the kennels. Were it not for the hunt, what on earth could the farmers do? By its action, the Ministry has demonstrated the importance of the service to agriculture throughout the countryside.

Mr. Garnier: The point is well made. Indeed, a number of Agriculture Ministers have acknowledged, both in the House and outside, the role played by hunts in the collection of fallen stock. Despite his views on hunting, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has acknowledged candidly the value of that role.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned the outbreak of foot and mouth, and said that the hunt provided a valuable service in collecting fallen stock. The new clause refers to
diseased and dead agricultural animals".
Have we learned nothing? Is the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) saying that it is right for hounds to be given diseased animals to eat?

Mr. Garnier: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman intervened in the way he did, at the time when he did. If he had visited a hunt kennels, he would understand that not all casualty stock is eaten by hounds. If an animal was diseased, and if the meat of that dead animal is likely to infect the hounds, no sensible keeper of hounds will feed it to them. The collection of diseased and dead animals from farmland, however, is vital to the proper maintenance of the rural economy. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that, he should have found it out by now.

Mr. Prentice: rose—

Mr. Garnier: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. If he waits, he will be able to make his own speech in due course, and I dare say that we shall all listen with rapt attention.
The Cobham report, commissioned in 1997 and entitled "Countryside sports: their economic, social and conservation significance", reported that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995—an average of more than 2,000 carcases per hunt. The report estimated that, when the work of the harrier and beagle packs was taken into account, the total number of carcases handled annually by all packs, including foxhounds, deerhounds and harriers, was more than 400,000.
Other reliable survey information demonstrated the economic value of the work done by hunts in clearing fallen stock; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out, Agriculture Ministers have been the first to admit that their work is valuable. When he was an Agriculture Minister, the Minister

of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), said in a written answer
a small survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service earlier this year"—
the year was 1998—
indicates that … 55 per cent. of calves, 35 per cent. of adult bovines, 25 per cent. of sheep and goats, and 10 per cent. of pigs and lambs, which have fallen, may be disposed of through hunt kennels."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 606W.]
Those bare figures, given by a member of the Government, who is now in a different Department, amply demonstrate the value of hunts to the agricultural economy.

Mr. Hogg: Is not it true that, if that collection facility is removed, the cost will fall on agriculture, particularly cattle producers, who face an appalling crisis at present?

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. In my constituency and, to a lesser extent but a still significant one, in his, livestock farmers are the main source of farming activity. Their average incomes are about £7,000 of £8,000. One cannot run a family on that sort of money The cost of fallen stock is met by farmers in some cases, but if that additional burden had generally to be paid for by farmers, because the service provided by hunts was removed by the Bill, no doubt unwittingly by its proposers, it would add yet further to the economic burdens suffered by our farming constituents.
It is not a party political point. There are Labour Members who represent farming areas and they surely must have spoken to their farmers and heard about their economic difficulties. To have placed upon them yet one further burden as a consequence of the removal of the collection of fallen stock would, as a matter of common sense, be a terrible blow.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, although it may be illegal, in practice, what will happen is that farmers will simply dig a hole to dispose of those animals? That will be very bad for the environment, but it will be an inevitable consequence of the Bill, even though that practice may be illegal.

Mr. Garnier: I sincerely hope that, if the Bill goes through without new clause 1, farmers will not do that—I am sure that no responsible farmer will do so. There would be an environmental risk, particularly if farmers dug pits near rivers or other water courses. The likelihood is that, should that happen, the water courses would be contaminated, to the danger of the entire rural environment in that area.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the value of the service provided by hunts illustrated by the fact that the National Trust is, apparently, still using the service, even though it has banned hunting of deer on its land?

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is accurate in what he says. It underlines the general point that I make: the service provided by hunts in removing fallen stock is


recognised not only by the Labour Government, but by organisations that recently banned hunting throughout their land.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Can my hon. and learned Friend give some estimate as to the total cost? According to the Cobham report, about 415,000 carcases are involved. I am told that the cost of removing a cow and a horse can be up to £20 each and a pig £10 per 50 kg. If we are talking about 415,000 carcases, the average cost to agriculture could be anything up to £80 million a year. We are talking about very large sums.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. His ability to do the arithmetic is no doubt better than mine.
The point does not need repetition. The valuable service that is provided by hunts in dealing with fallen stock has been recognised for years. It is recognised across party—[interruption] It is recognised even by the Prime Minister, I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). Ouite where he said that, I do not know and quite whether he knew what he was saying, I do not know either.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Joyce Quin, the Minister for—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should know the terminology by now

Miss McIntosh: I apologise. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), has asserted in the House—it is on the record—that the hunts make a positive and valuable contribution to the removal of fallen stock on farms.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is of course quite right.
Before moving on to amendment No. 40, I should like to remind the House of some facts— of which I am sure that those who have taken an interest in the Bill will be aware. Two local studies have been conducted—one in west Somerset and one in Wiltshire—of the value of the fallen stock service provided by th hunts. The West Somerset district council report, produced in 1998–99, showed that operating fallen stock services in the study area collected a total of more than 12,000 carcases annually, and that farmers estimated tl at the service saved them each an average of £212.50 annually. Alternative disposal methods were estimated to be about five times as expensive as use of the hunt service.
The Wiltshire county farms report, published in 1995, indicated that 89 per cent. of farms disposed of cows, sheep and horses through hunt kennels and that 77 per cent. of farms had used the hunt to dispose of livestock in the previous 12 months. The report also found:
the hunt currently provides an important carcass disposal service to Council tenants, particularly those which are dairy farmers".
I return to the point made just a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. We are discussing evidence of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food making use of the fallen stock service provided by the Avon hunt at a time when, sadly, there are a great many more beasts to be cleared from farms.
Although the service was traditionally provided without charge, some hunts now require a contribution to help meet the costs of their fallen stock service. However, the types of sums that the hunts are charging are way below an economic cost. If one were to employ a knackerman or another professional agency to clear fallen stock, the sums required would—as the West Somerset district council report indicated—be far higher. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in this week of all weeks, when we are discussing foot and mouth, those oncosts would be unbearable.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Perhaps I misheard or misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. Is he telling the House that MAFF officials took animals infected with foot and mouth and passed them over to the hunts, so that the hounds could devour those diseased animals? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that I accept the use of the alternative—I think that the hon. Gentleman both misunderstood and misheard what I and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. MAFF has suggested that the hunt should be used to clear fallen stock not because that stock has been infected by foot and mouth, but because those animals were already casualties from another cause. Some stock may, for example, have broken a leg in a fence or be suffering from some other non-contagious condition that, as Lord Burns might have said, turned out to be fatal or compromised their welfare.

Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the matter we are discussing is not one that should divide those who are for a hunting ban and those who are against one? Surely it is a matter of good public policy that, particularly now, there should be a safe, efficient and effective way of dealing with casualty stock. The almost half a million carcases that are going to the hunts each year will have to go somewhere in future. That is what this discussion is all about.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. Some people would say—although I as the Member for Harborough would disagree—that the south-west of England, part of which he represents, is the headquarters of the livestock farming industry. Nevertheless, it does not matter whether when one represents Somerset, Montgomeryshire, Northumberland, Sussex, Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire or Leicestershire, the point is the same: those animals will have to be cleared off the land in one way or another.
I hope that Ministers will be able to appreciate the point that we are making. Conservative Members believe that the scheme that we are proposing in new clause 1 is essential. I accept that the new clause may not be perfect in every detail, but I trust that the Home Office lawyers who have been so careful in drafting the schedule and the Bill will, if necessary, be able to adjust its wording to make it suitable.
However, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right: despite the differences between his party and mine about hunting, the new clause proposes an essential scheme for the maintenance and preservation of the rural economy.

Mr. Soames: I have no quarrel with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), but there is


disagreement between his party and the Conservative party. If hunting is banned, there will be no one to fulfil the obligation regarding fallen stock. Hunts will not retain kennel staff merely to clear away fallen stock in the countryside. If the hunts go, the fallen stock system will go too.

5 pm

Mr. Garnier: It is possible that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) may have misunderstood slightly the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I do not know the hon. Gentleman's views on hunting, but I assume that he, like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex and I, abhors the Bill. If the House has its way and the Bill becomes law, the job of Opposition Members is to mitigate its worst effects on the wider rural economy, and specifically in respect of fallen stock. Farmers will be placed in desperate economic straits and put to huge expense if hunts are banned and the fallen stock service is lost. New clause 1 would provide some mitigation for the worst effects.
Other hon. Members may have other and better points to make in respect of new clause 1, but I intend now to speak briefly to amendment No. 40, which is designed to create compensatory schemes for people suffering a loss due to the cessation of businesses and jobs as a result of a hunting ban, or for people whose jobs or businesses are materially affected by a hunting ban. The proposed schemes would also provide for compensation for loss due to damage done by wild mammals that were previously controlled by hunting, and for loss due to deprivation of any services previously provided by hunts.
The debate is very timely, in the context of the present foot and mouth disease outbreak. On behalf of my constituents and those represented by other hon. Members with rural constituencies, I again express regret that no Minister from MAFF is present to give the House that Department's view of the matter. We know what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said yesterday about economic loss, and I doubt that many Conservative Members were very impressed. However, the right hon. Gentleman's remarks gave me to understand that we are not likely to hear him address the House on the subject again.
As I said, amendment No. 40 would compensate people whose business or job is materially affected by a ban on hunting, and people who are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses because of the loss of services provided by hunts. The Burns report contains a great deal of information about the economic effect that a ban on hunting would have. I shall not bandy figures with those who disagree with me on the question of hunting, which is the main principle at issue, but I shall draw the House's attention to some of the information that ought to inform the debate. I trust that it will persuade those listening that the amendment is worthy of consideration and support.
Hunting with hounds makes a fourfold contribution to the rural economy. Hunts and hunting organisations employ full-time and part-time staff. The people who participate in hunting with hounds employ stable staff, or provide further employment by keeping their hunting horses at livery. Hunts, hunting organisations and their

members and followers incur direct expenditure on goods and services in order to participate in hunting. Finally, expenditure by participants in hunting with hounds stimulates the rural economy by creating a demand for other goods and services. The indirect expenditure arising from hunting generates income and jobs for others. It can enable small businesses to have enough overall income to trade profitably. All of that will go, or will certainly be badly affected, in the event that hunting is banned.
Other speakers will be able to provide the House with information relating to their areas of the country. I should like to illustrate the points that are relevant to this debate by referring to my county of Leicestershire. The gross contribution to the economy of Leicestershire from its seven packs and their members' hunting expenditure is nearly £9.2 million per annum. In the great scheme of things, and compared with the social security budget, I appreciate that £9.2 million is not a great deal of money, but to the farriers and those who work in the livery stables and the clothing shops in Leicestershire, that £9.2 million is hugely important—it helps their families to survive. We estimate that about 750 full-time and part-time jobs in Leicestershire rely directly on hunting.
Let me bring this down to an even smaller compass. In the village where I live, other than those who commute to Leicester—of whom there are not many—all the jobs depend, in one way or the other, upon the hunt. That is not to say that all those who live or work in the village are employed directly by the hunt. However, they have something to do with horses; they have something to do with the clothing industry that makes riding clothes, boots and saddles.
Just a little way down the hill from where I live is a small rural industrial estate where there is a metal worker, a mechanic and a riding equipment and clothing shop. All three of those small businesses are dependent on the hunt for the majority of their income. Abolishing the hunt will destroy livelihoods which those people have spent their lives working to create. We will throw out of work any number of perfectly innocent victims of the Bill.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. and learned Friend makes a very valid point for rural areas. It is, of course, also true for an urban area such as Walsall, which is the centre of the leather industry. It is an important contributor to saddlery, making the finest saddles, I would argue, in the world. That means that saddlery and leather companies are dependent on this business, which supports the wider economic interest of an urban centre such as Walsall.

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend makes a particularly telling point which demonstrates the inter-relationship between the rural and urban economy. We cannot simply say that this is an urban or a rural issue. The matter affects all our constituents. My hon. Friend's constituents in the leather trade in his part of the west midlands no doubt sell their products across the country and, I dare say, abroad to Ireland, America and France where, if the Bill becomes law, many of the more well-heeled members of our society will take their horses—or at least themselves—to hunt. My less well off constituents will lose their jobs. The less well-off leather workers in my hon. Friend's



constituency may lose their jobs. Hunting will go on, but not in this country, and it will be to the economic disadvantage of his constituents and nine.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. and learned Friend remind the House that there is a precedent? The House considered compensation in our deliberations on the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, when the Government were driven to offer a compensation scheme. As they conceded the point in the context of fur farming, there can be no possible opposition to a concession it, this area.

Mr. Garnier: That is a rational argument. Unfortunately, it may not touch the intellects of those who vehemently oppose hunting. That is something with which my right hon. and learned Friend and I will have to deal. We must do our best to persuade the House and the country as a whole of the cogency and good sense of the points that we make.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that very point?

Mr. Garnier: I think that the hon Gentleman will be making his own speech in a few moments.
Many right hon. and hon. Members will wish to speak from their own experience and that of their constituents about fallen stock and the compensation that will become necessary as a consequence of the Bill's draconian effects.
I have taken up quite enough of the House's time; the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is itching to get to his feet. I urge the House to consider carefully the points that I made—albeit briefly. Before hon. Members come to a decision on the measure, I urge them to do their best to mitigate its worst effects. Without our new clause and amendment and without the amendment that will be proposed by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, the Bill will be far worse than it need be. Its supporters will have to answer for that in due course

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Like many of the amendments tabled on Report, amendment No. 36 is intended to mitigate the worst of the injustices that the Bill would inflict on those individuals who lose their right to hunt. In introducing the amendment I hope to illustrate that—as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly pointed out—our proposals have nothing to do with whether one agrees with a ban on hunting with dogs. They are entirely about fairness and about compensating individuals, as we should do if we ask people in any walk of life profoundly to change their life style on account of legislation.
The proposals on fallen stock reflect that view. Anyone who has ever had to deal with that issue would agree that the logic of the arguments that have been made simply serves to underline the importance of our holding an objective view on the consequences of a ban on hunting with dogs.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide the Secretary of State with the latitude to introduce a sensible compensation scheme, following consultation, for the losses in employment and the effects on damage and pest control in some parts of Britain that will arise from the restrictions introduced by the Bill. The amendment gives the Secretary of State plenty of scope to work out the

details. The issue is important and must be handled through consultation with the organisations and individuals most affected by the Bill.
The amendment specifically requires the Secretary of State to consider schemes to compensate individuals who lose business as a result of the Bill and who suffer greater depredations by foxes and other predatory animals because the traditional means of control is no longer available. Such schemes should
specify the descriptions of losses and businesses"—
and—
the amounts of the payments.
They should
provide for the procedure to be followed
and introduce a system of arbitration in the event of disputes. The system of compensation would be introduced by statutory instrument, thus giving the House a further opportunity to consider the matter.
Our challenge is to establish a compensation system that genuinely brings fairness into the ban on hunting with dogs. It cannot be just to take away a person's livelihood without making good the loss through compensation. Similarly, it cannot be morally just to take away a person's ability to control a pest without making good the loss that results from the damage caused by that pest.
Burns was clear on that point. Paragraph 10.60 of the report states:
In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels.
There are other examples of Burns's acknowledging that as a salient and important point, but perhaps most important of all, the Burns report states:
It would be a matter for the Government to consider, in the event of a ban and in the light of clearer guidance about its likely effects, whether any compensation should be paid in this particular case.
To interpret that, Burns is basically saying that it is a Government responsibility to make a judgment about the case for compensation.
5.15 pm
I understand that Deadline 2000 does not believe that there is a case for such compensation. I could go through its arguments, but there would not be much point in my doing so because, clearly, I disagree with them, and there other hon. Members who will no doubt seek to explain why they do not believe that the farming community deserves compensation as a result of a ban on hunting with dogs. However, there is no doubt in my mind that the individuals who hunt with dogs in the uplands of mid-Wales—which, as hon. Members know, is the area that I know best in this regard—would definitely expect an increase in predation on their stock if they could not pursue and dispatch foxes with dogs. Without rehearsing the details of the argument yet again, the reason for that is simple.
As Burns acknowledged, people in the uplands of mid-Wales genuinely believe that hunting with dogs is the most effective means to control foxes, and Burns had some sympathy with that view. So the ban will remove a pest-control procedure which has been long established in


the area and which is largely regarded as effective by the experts in pest control—the farmers and the huntsmen. If that were the case for any other abolition or prohibition of a pest-control method, I should like to think that the House would, as a matter of course, consider the case for compensation.
My concern is that because we sometimes stray into areas not directly related to the objective consequences of our actions, those who simply do not like hunting and want to ban it think that there is no case to compensate those who hunt for the loss that they will incur as a result of the prohibition. Obviously, hon. Members are entitled to make up their own minds, but I simply disagree with that view. We have to subjugate our feelings to our values—one of which must surely be that of fairness.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind two points, the first of which is the Bill's significance to those whose paid employment depends on the continuation of hunting. If hunting ends, they will simply lose their jobs, because it will not be legal to employ them to do what they are trained to do.
Secondly, given that this proposal extends beyond the principle of hunting and could therefore be supported by hon. Members who would like to abolish hunting but who nevertheless understand the fairness case, I hope that my hon. Friend will press amendment No. 36 to a separate Division.

Mr. Öpik: Indeed. I would have made that request later, but I shall do so now. I hope that we shall have a separate vote on amendment No. 36—if you see fit, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because compensation involves a free-standing, specific and crystal-clear binary decision. In other words, although we can discuss fallen stock—also a fairly clear issue—it must be a matter for the House to state publicly in its vote whether we believe that, as I claim, a moral wrong will be committed if we take away such rights without compensating those who will lose their jobs and their ability to control pests in the way that they have done previously. That is a powerful reason to have a separate vote on amendment No. 36.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that there is some sort of moral wrong in criminalising an activity and not paying compensation to those who would break the law as a result of continuing that activity. We regularly criminalise certain activities. The House has criminalised all sorts of things, from burglary to whatever. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in all cases when we change the law, we ought to compensate those who carry on an activity that was not previously criminal? I do not seek to equate hunting with burglary; I am saying something quite different. [Interruption.] I am trying to be brief, so I do not want to deal with that matter further. The House regularly makes criminal certain things that were previously legal—whether handguns or whatever—and in those circumstances, we do not always pay compensation.

Mr. Öpik: The Minister has talked himself into a hole. He used burglary as his first example. Of course, we would not compensate individuals if their right to burgle

houses were taken away. However, what kind of a comparison was that? Burglary was never legal; it certainly has not been in my lifetime. It is not sensible to compare burglary with foxhunting, which is manifestly legal and, more to the point, regarded as a legitimate activity by a large proportion of people.
The Minister needs to think hard about the logic of his argument. I have not a shadow of a doubt that the individuals in my constituency who go hunting foxes with dogs genuinely do not think that they are committing a moral wrong. In fact, I would go further: they do not understand why that civil liberty is being taken away. For that reason, the case for compensation in this example is very much more like the case for compensation when fur farms were closed down and when handguns were taken away. Those examples relate much more closely to the character of this debate than does any comparison with burglary.

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I used the wrong example. Burglary has always been illegal. However, badger baiting has not always been illegal. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should have compensated badger baiters? Dog fighting has been banned. Is he suggesting that we should have compensated those who participated in that? Handguns were banned. Is he suggesting that everyone involved with them should have been compensated? What is he suggesting as a general moral principle? He is ducking the issue by picking up on the particular point I made when I compared foxhunting to burglary. I accept that that was probably a bad example, but will he now deal with the much sounder pints that I have just made?

Mr. Öpik: I accept the Minister's point about the comparison with burglary, so let us move on from that. He has given three much more interesting examples that serve merely to highlight the case for compensation.
The Minister asked about badger baiting. Badger baiting was never a form of pest control, and I do not think that anyone never pretended that it was. It was a form of entertainment through the torture of animals. The Minister has sat through the lengthy debates in the House and in Committee, so he knows that at least a proportion of the people who control foxes with dogs do not regard it as anything less than a legitimate form of pest control. Even if he wants to claim that some people go foxhunting purely for sport, I hope that he will at least accept that a proportion of them believe that the Government's proposals will outlaw a legitimate form of pest control.
The Minister cannot question the fact that some people will lose their jobs, and that that is not their fault. Those people will not understand why, in relation to compensation, the hon. Gentleman seeks to compare the abolition of badger baiting with a ban on the hunting of foxes with dogs as a means of pest control.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us who want hunting to be banned and who see compensation as a separate issue are not yet convinced by the Minister's response? Frankly, I feel slightly uncomfortable about his intervention.
When fur farming was banned, members of the public who were involved in a legitimate activity—an activity that many of us thought was reprehensible for animal


welfare reasons—were compensated when their right to engage in it was taken away and, as I understand it, they have gone abroad and used the money to set up farms in Denmark. I fail to understand the difference between fur farming, which was reprehensible and legal, and foxhunting, which I also regard as reprehensible and legal. What is the difference?

Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend takes a very different view from me on the question of a ban or foxhunting, but he highlights a fundamental point. We should not be divided on the issue of justice.
The Minister's second example was dog fighting. Again, that was never a form of pest control. It was a barbaric form of entertainment based on the torture of animals and it had no legitimate justification in terms of the wider interest. Furthermore, although I do not want to put words in the mouth of Lord Burns, I am fairly confident that had he been commissoned to study bear baiting and dog fighting, his report w ould have provided an unarguable case in favour of a ban without compensation. Of course we would not pay compensation in those circumstances and those examples are inappropriate.
The Minister's third example is, however, appropriate. The banning of handguns removed the ability to participate in a legal activity that the Government regarded as dangerous. I did not agree with them, but the ban warranted compensation. The Minister was wrong to say that none was paid, because an enormous amount was provided. To the hon. Gentleman's credit, he is nodding in agreement, but he cited the banning of handguns as an example of where we should not pay compensation. His acknowledgement makes the opposite case.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman refers to handguns, and the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr Baker) referred to fur farmers, as did I. The banning of self-loading rifles in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is another example because compensation was paid to those people who lost their large-magazine self-loading rifles.

Mr. Öpik: I am sure that we could give many other examples, and there is a common theme to those that have been cited. When we have banned an activity—either on moral grounds or because it is in the public interest to do so—as long as we have genuinely believed that the individuals who will lose their livelihoods or incur costs have not acted in an overtly reprehensible manner that affected the quality of our society, we have paid compensation.
Perhaps Labour Members do not want to pay compensation because they believe that people who hunt with dogs are so barbaric and reprehensible that they do not deserve to have that right. I remind the House of the precedents: handguns, fur farming and self-loading rifles. We all have different opinions about me morality of using such items or being involved in such activities, but I like to think that we are united in agreeing that we need to treat people fairly. People who hunt with dogs will not understand the logic of compensating for the closure of fur farms and not compensating foi the closure of an entire industry. Thousands of jobs are at stake and, in some areas, the ban may have a serious effect on predator activity.

Mr. David Heath: I hope that my hon. Friend will not pursue to great length the activity of hunting but will

concentrate instead on the people whose jobs depend on it. Many kennel maids and hunt staff are among the lowest-paid people in the industry. Clearly they should be compensated if hunting is banned. It is reprehensible that the Bill does not recognise that group of people and their rights.

Mr. Öpik: I was coming to that issue—although as my hon. Friend has raised it, I shall not dwell on it for too long. People who are directly involved in the industry—perhaps looking after kennels or dogs—may not have strong views about hunting with dogs. Hon. Members on both sides of the House might be able to strike up a friendship with them and come to respect them. They might understand that they have a great love of animals and the countryside. Were Labour Members and others who oppose compensation to meet them, they would discover that they are ordinary folk who are having their livelihoods removed without receiving compensation. It is simply not just to do that to individuals. That may not be high parliamentary language, but the problem is simple: we are about to punish people for a decision which we are making and in which they have played no part. Normally we compensate people when we do that.
5.30 pm
I am concerned that some Members who support the ban are unwilling to accept the simple and powerful objective that lies behind amendments Nos. 36 and 40. It is almost as if they think that it is a sign of weakness to compensate individuals who are losing their livelihood and that it is dangerous to associate the case for compensation with a ban on hunting with dogs. Some comments suggest that the distinction has been blurred. Taking away the right to hunt with dogs is one thing, but not compensating individuals who have been involved in that activity in good spirit and good faith, and as morally as they can, is another.
I believe that amendment No 36 raises a materially different issue from that which arises from new clause 1. I would be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would allow a separate vote on amendment No 36, so that we might make a clear statement on where the House stands on the case for compensation for those who lose out in the ways that I have described.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Changes in public policy have never resulted automatically in compensation being paid. If that were the position, when we changed the law on anything under the sun, people would be knocking on the door of the relevant Minister pleading for compensation. Let us say that there was a change in the law on drink-driving, the limit was reduced and some publicans lost trade—publicans would tell Ministers that they wanted compensation.
Three examples have been cited, and I have a fourth and better one.

Mr. Garnier: Did the licensed trade go to the Home Office when the breathalyser was first introduced to ask for compensation? I do not think it did.

Mr. Prentice: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) that it did.


However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) gave us three examples, and I have a fourth, which is more relevant.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as the then Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, presided over the BSE catastrophe. The entire head deboning industry was wiped out. The heads of animals were cut off, and they were of no use to us in Britain because we do not eat cheek pouches. However, in France they are a great delicacy. The pouches were turned into a pâté in France, and that kept an industry running in Britain.
The head deboning industry went down the pan and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham swept to one side pleas for compensation. I would give greater credence to pleas from those on the Opposition Front Bench for compensation if they could point to a record of providing it when they were in government, of compensation being given as a result of changes in public policy.

Mr. Hogg: In substance, the hon. Gentleman is right. Head deboners were not compensated, and I have always been troubled by that decision, which probably was wrong. However, I was also responsible for firearms legislation at the end of the 1980s. The hon. Gentleman will remember that owners of large-magazine, self-loading rifles were compensated. I was glad to play a part in that process.

Mr. Prentice: BSE is slightly more relevant to the debate than self-loading firearms. That brings me to my point, having been prompted by the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). I believe—I am sure that the view is not shared by any Opposition Members—that diseased animals should not be fed to hounds. That is wrong. Have we learned nothing from the catastrophes and the chaos of the past decade? It is wrong to feed diseased animals—not animals that have broken a forelock or have tripped, become concussed and then died—to hounds. Diseased animals should be incinerated.
I am surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough made no reference to the Burns report as new clause 1 is all about the disposal of fallen stock. At paragraph 3.59, on page 62, Burns refers to the EU waste incineration directive, which introduces new requirements for hygiene and incinerators. Because of the requirements of the new directive, Burns says:
It is not clear…whether all the hunts would be able to continue the fallen stock service even if hunting was not banned.
We have not heard the whole story from the hon. and learned Gentleman, just a partial rendition.

Mr. Garnier: Before the hon. Gentleman accuses me further of misleading the House, would he care to read the entire paragraph that he has cited? It adds, in terms, that the hunts have incinerators that they might find it expensive to upgrade. Diseased fallen stock are not fed to the hounds; it is those that have died as a result of breaking a bone or other injury. I said that when the hon. Gentleman intervened on my opening remarks; it may be that he has forgotten that, but if he wishes to make a point

on the basis of the Burns report, he should do that report justice by reading the whole of the paragraph to which he refers.

Mr. Prentice: I was going to continue my point about diseased animals by referring to the Phillips report—not, thankfully, all 16 volumes of it, but just volume 1. Hunt kennels and knachers' yards earn a multiplicity of references throughout all 16 volumes; if the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has the report to hand, he might consider page 86, paragraph 438. As far as hunt kennels were concerned, there were no adequate checks between 1991 and 1996 on whether hounds were fed specified risk material. They could well have been, and I suspect that they were. The regulations in place at the time—the 1982 regulations—required knacker meat to be treated as unfit for human consumption and to be stained, but there were no provisions in respect of specified risk material.
Who knows what dreadful, contaminated stuff was fed to the poor hounds in the kennels? It is wrong for diseased animals to be fed to other animals, and the new clause serves no useful purpose.

Mr. Soames: Let me try to reassure the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who seeks always to find a way to denigrate hunting or show that its practitioners act improperly. No hunt, no huntsman and no hunt staff would ever feed to their hounds anything that it would be improper for them to eat. I know that the hon. Gentleman's pea-like brain will find the proposition impossible to understand, but those people love their hounds and would never do any such thing.
In his ignorance, the hon. Gentleman does not understand that hunt kennels are approved premises for rendering animal by-products, including carcases, under the Animal By-Products Order 1999. Diseased stock would be disposed of by hunts absolutely properly.
I support the proposals in new clause 1 on the disposal of fallen stock. The views of the hon. Member for Pendle on hunting and the countryside are way off-beam, compared with what really goes on. However, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made a reasonable, sensible and careful case, as he always does. In the past two years, for example, the market in bull calves collapsed and it was impossible to sell them. Had it not been for the hunt service putting those animals down humanely and disposing of them, the countryside would have been a shambles.
I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I served together at MAFF. We were concerned about the tidiness of the countryside and the possibility of farmers burying stock, and the remains of diseased animals leaching into the water supply. That ceaused us extreme anxiety. I remember the seriousness with which MAFF dealt with the matter and tried to produce a satisfactory proposal.
The countryside would have been a shambles, were it not for the hunt service. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, the hunts have worked with farmers in every county at a time of great difficulty for farmers. When we consider the pressure that farmers are experiencing as a result of the wicked, awful foot and mouth outbreak, as my right


hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal observed, how can the House waste a day debating the banning of a perfectly legal pastime? That reflects a warped and improper sense of priorities, at a time when farmers the length and breadth of the land are worried for the future of their industry.

Mr. David Rendel: I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I thought that his side was arguing that more than one day should be spent on the Hunting Bill.

Mr. Soames: We shall all leave the hon. Gentleman alone in a darkened room and let him keep taking the tablets.
Hunting with hounds provides a genuine agricultural benefit to farmers, in addition to pest control. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, the collection from farms of fallen stock—that is, unsaleable dead farm animals—or the collection and humane killing of injured or sick animals is an extremely important service.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), then an Agriculture Minister—and a very good one, incidentally—stated in a written answer—[Interruption.] I hope that the Under-Secretary will be good enough to do me the courtesy of listening to what I am about to say. If he could spare me a moment of his valuable time, instead of conferring with Deadbeat 2000, I should be grateful.
The parliamentary written answer to which I want the Under-Secretary to pay attention was from his right hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, then a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It stated:
a small survey undertaken by the State Veterinary Service earlier this year indicates that around 55 per cent. of calves, 35 per cent. of adult bovines, 25 per cent. of sheep and goats, and 10 per cent. of pigs and Iambs, which have fallen, may be disposed of through hunt kennels."—[Official Report, 25 June 1998: Vol. 314, c. 606W.]

Mr. Gummer: Has my hon. Friend noted that it is he who has had to bring those figures to the notice of the House? Surely that is precisely the kind of information that the Government should have brought to the notice of the House in order for there to be a proper debate, but perhaps it is not in the brief of Deadbeat 2000.

Mr. Soames: The information is not in the brief of Deadbeat 2000, as it would show hunting for what it is—an integral part of the countryside, not just for sport but for the proper use and support of the farming industry.

Mr. Hogg: Does not my hon. Friend's point make it plain that the House is entitled to the advice of Agriculture Ministers, because the new clauses impact on agriculture? Is it not a scandal that no Agriculture Minister is present in the Chamber to advise us? If Agriculture Ministers could not be present, the proper course would be to adjourn the debate until they could be present.

Mr. Soames: I wholly agree. My right hon. and learned Friend will recognise that had I worked for him, as I did for my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal

so happily for almost 18 months, he would have insisted that a junior Agriculture Minister was present in the House with the Home Office team, in view of that Department's obvious ignorance of what MAFF does.

Mr. Russell Brown: I find it somewhat ironic that the Conservative party yesterday demanded that MAFF officials and Ministers be present in the Chamber, and is now asking again for Ministers to be here, when those people have to deal with a foot and mouth outbreak.

Mr. Soames: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has been in the House for only a short time and that he will not be with us for much longer. We seek the presence not of officials but of Ministers. It is not they who are lighting the bonfires and dealing with the foot and mouth outbreak, but the state veterinary service—and a very good job it is doing. It is right and proper that an Agriculture Minister should be present, not least to dig the poor, wretched Under-Secretary out of the hole into which he is getting himself.
The Government cannot ignore the consequences of a ban, or merely wish or magic them away. One cannot ban hunting overnight without proposing compensation or some other arrangement for the farmers or the good order and stewardship of the countryside. Neither can one abolish overnight, at a time of enormous difficulty for agriculture, the method by which fallen stock has previously been disposed of. The Government cannot ask us to take such legislation seriously and not to believe and understand the deep and burning resentment in the countryside. That feeling exists not just because people who live in the countryside have given up on the Government for failing to understand the thrust of their complaints, but because of the Government's total ignorance and inability to understand the consequences of what they are doing.
I do not wish to bang on about figures, but I should like briefly to mention some significant ones. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned the Cobham report, which states that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995. The national survey of hunts recorded that 200 of the packs surveyed currently provide a fallen stock service. Those hunts handled a total of 366,000 carcases in the previous 12 months, at an average cost to each of £18,000 per annum.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman will know that MAFF has tended to advise individuals with a fallen stock problem to take that problem to the hunt. That advice has been given by the Ministry itself.

Mr. Soames: Indeed it has. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham expressed concern about the absence of a MAFF Minister. It is not the poor, wretched Home Office that will have to deal with farmers ringing up and saying, "I've got 10 bull calves to be put away this morning. There is no market for them, so I'll have to get them destroyed. How am I to dispose of them?" What is to happen to such farmers? Will they have to ring the Reading office, which is Sussex's nearest regional office? What will the MAFF regional office tell them? It cannot tell them to find a knackerman, as there are no knackermen left. Those are the serious consequences.
The Under-Secretary is right to say that, by and large, we had a cordial and reasonably civilised debate in Committee. However, we are now dealing with the consequences that would flow from a ban on hunting. Those consequences are serious and cannot be magicked away. They require the most serious and detailed answer, to show that the Government understand and have catered for the consequences of hunts closing down and the lack of a collection service in, for example, West Sussex, which has a substantial dairy industry and a pretty substantial beef industry. The county places many requirements on hunts, which provide a wonderful social service for the farmers and the countryside by clearing away fallen stock. I urge my hon. Friends and Labour Members whose minds are not closed to these matters to think very carefully about the importance of the new clause.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I wish to speak to amendment No. 36, to which the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) also spoke. Before I do so, may I declare an interest? Many Members will know that I am retiring at the election—and I am going fishing. It is time somebody spoke up in this debate for the fishing industry. No one knows better than fishermen the damage that mink do to the countryside and especially to fish. Mink do not eat many fish, but they destroy many of them. They bite them, tear lumps out of them and leave them looking deformed. Damage to fish by mink has cost one of my local fishermen who stocks a pool in Newcastle-under-Lyme £1,000.
I know that the Labour party has an anglers' charter and that that says that Labour will protect the environment for all to enjoy, especially anglers, but I must tell the Minister that if the Bill is unamended and mink hunting is banned, we shall not be meeting our manifesto promise. Many think that angling is just for a few people, but it is a big tourist industry. It has been encouraged in rural areas in order to attract work—but I see that the Minister wants to intervene.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: indicated dissent.

Mrs. Golding: No; I beg his pardon.
Gamekeepers and water bailiffs who man many rivers call in mink hunts to sweep the rivers in order to get rid of mink. I have a letter from the Northern Counties hunt in Yorkshire, which states that more than half its call-outs are from gamekeepers on the Esk, Dove, Seph, Leven, Rye and Derwent, and from water bailiffs on the Ure, Cock Beck and Wharfe. Unless we consider the damage that mink do to our rivers, our wildlife and our fishing industry, we will not be taking the Bill seriously.
Many people will lose their jobs as a result of damage by mink. I say to the Minister in all seriousness that unless he can find £40 million to eradicate mink, he should not be supporting the banning of mink hunting and certainly should be considering compensating many anglers and river keepers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I am having a little difficulty linking her remarks to the particular terms of the amendment, which seeks compensation for people affected by this Act.

Mrs. Golding: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the amendment also refers to
damage by wild animals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act"—
by mink, in other words.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It states "by this Act", which is concerned largely with hunting with dogs, not fishing.

Mrs. Golding: No, but mink are hunted with dogs. Mink are controlled by mink packs and mink hunting will be banned if the Bill is enacted. We really should be considering the fact that the Bill will ban mink hunting. I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing that out, but I thought that that would be understood.

Mr. Öpik: Is the hon. Lady saying that damage to people involved in, say, fishing and so forth will be very much the same as that suffered by, say, a sheep farmer who loses lambs? She is trying to draw an analogy between foxes that predate on lambs and mink that predate on fish. She is saying that there is a case for compensation for the people about whom she is concerned, just as I am concerned about compensation for people who suffer as a result of fox predation.

Mrs. Golding: I agree. The poor fishing stock owner in my constituency never had the advantage of mink hounds, but he knew that the Government were not prepared to invest anything in controlling mink. It is estimated that it will cost £40 million to control mink if hunting them is banned. I seriously think that the control of these vicious pests should be considered when looking for compensation for people who will lose their livelihoods as the result of the ban.

Mr. Hogg: I rise to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on new clause 1 and amendment No. 40. I do so on the basis that I am strongly opposed to the Bill, which I regard as an outrageous infringement of civil rights.
If we are to have this Bill at all, clearly we must try to address some of its consequences. The question of fallen stock is a very important consequence. The House would therefore be absolutely right to support the new clause, which would at least provide a scheme for dealing with fallen stock. I hope, too, that the House will recognise that if there is a ban, a very heavy cost will fall on the agriculture industry in the dealing with fallen stock.
It is bizarre that at the very time when the agriculture industry and livestock producers in particular are facing the crisis of foot and mouth disease, this House should be contemplating imposing on them yet a further charge. That makes it even more scandalous that there is not an Agriculture Minister on the Government Front Bench.
I am perfectly prepared to accept that the Minister of Agriculture is engaged elsewhere—although in his case it is probably in a broadcasting studio—[Interruption.] Labour Members may whine but the Minister of Agriculture made it absolutely plain to the House yesterday that he thought it inappropriate and a waste of his time to explain to the House the problems of foot and mouth disease and to account for his policies. We regard it as his duty to be in the House.
Let me remind you, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I was Minister of Agriculture dealing with BSE, I came to the House on many occasions. On about 30—or perhaps 20—occasions, I or my ministerial colleagues came to the House, usually, or at least often, at the request of the then Opposition to account for our policies. We never suggested that that was a waste of our time or otherwise inappropriate: we regarded it as our duty. I very much regret the absence of Agriculture Ministers.
I return to the subject of new clause 1. We must not impose on livestock producers an even heavier burden at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is wholly right to speak of the very important services that hunts provide in the disposal of fallen stock. If we must have a Bill such as this, not to make proper provision for such disposal is a dereliction of duty.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: To put some value on the service, a New Forest pony might fetch—if one is lucky—£5 at the Beaulieu road market. However, to remove a dead pony that has been knocked over, as so many are every week by motor vehicles, to a knacker would cost in excess of £70. That is a measure of the loss to the commoners of the New Forest that we would be looking to this legislation to replace.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to bring the detail before the House. If one wants more general information, one will find it in the Burns report on page 62, where it states that something like 336,000 carcases are disposed of by hounds. Dealing with such a number would be a significant cost to agriculture.

Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend is characteristically generous with his time.
Just outside my constituency is Ashdown forest, as my right hon. and learned Friend will know, in which there is a splendid and very healthy population of deer. Unfortunately, the deer are often run over. It is the hunt that collects those deer and, if necessary, puts them down and takes them away. If the hunt do not undertake that task, whom does he envisage doing so? Would it be Wealden district council, which presumably does not have a team of knackermen on standby? Who would do that extremely important work for the community?

6 pm

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend shows the importance of Report stage, which is being truncated. The House has naturally focused on the responsibilities of hunts for the disposal of fallen stock, but my hon. Friend has reminded us about deer on the roads. If there be no hunts, the cost will fall on district councils, and thus on the council tax payer. That is another example of the Government's not thinking through the problems that they are obliged to face.
Amendment No. 40 deals with compensation. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there have long been differences of opinion on compensation. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made a fair point against me. When I was Minister of Agriculture I did not provide a compensation scheme for head deboners. However, I provided extensive compensation schemes for the farming industry. I did not provide such a scheme for

head deboners partly because of the precedents, which were comprehensive, and partly because of the fear of establishing another precedent that could subsequently be prayed in aid.
I was uneasy about that decision at the time, but I made it. On reflection, I think that it was probably wrong for a number of reasons—at least I would not make such a decision now. To start off with, the argument has moved on, partly as a result of law. The incorporation in domestic law of the European convention on human rights, in particular the obligation to pay compensation when people's property rights are interfered with, has changed the discussion in this area; the debate has moved on.
Then there are the precedents, some of which operated at the time and some of which have been brought into operation since then. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 provided for compensation in respect of the owners of the firearms confiscated, although it did not extend to consequential loss. The same was true in respect of handguns. The scheme for fur farmers is more generous, and if it is properly implemented will probably extend to consequential loss. The precedents are changing in favour of compensation.
I am bound to say also that in the end it is a matter of principle, which makes me uneasy with the decision that I took with regard to head deboners. The plain truth is that we are proposing—in my view, wholly wrongly—to take away people's livelihoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) reminded us of saddlers. The Burns report identifies many other occupations of people whose activities are related to hunting. We will deprive them of their livelihoods. We will take away the employment of the people who work directly for the hunts, whether as kennel-men or kennel-maids or in the stables, and also of those who service the hunting industry. For what reason? The honest answer is that we are destroying people's livelihoods to indulge the prejudices and views of certain people in the House.
There should be a cost attached to that. If we are really going to do such a frightful and odious thing, by God we should pay for it. I do not see why honest, law-abiding citizens, who for generations past have earned their living in a way that they deem wholly respectable—and so do I—should lose their jobs without compensation. That is a scandal. I hope that this matter will be pushed to a Division, because I want to see Labour MPs voting against compensation. By doing so, they will declare their true colours. I view their position on this matter with contempt.

Dr. George Turner: I do not want to encourage the debate to be any more bad-tempered than it has become. [Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members are allowed to call each other pea-brained, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) said, if one is pot-bellied one gets away with making such allegations in the House.
I have voted for the principle of the Bill, but I want some of the consequences of its enactment to be considered carefully. [Interruption.]

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner: No, I want to make my point.
My experience as a member of the Select Committee on Agriculture, limited though it is, tells me that Conservative Members should be a little more sanguine about the BSE saga, given the consequences for many in agriculture about which they now complain and which lie at their door due to their incompetent handling of the crisis. [Interruption.] Given the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle referred to, and the outbreak of classical swine fever, which is still relatively—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman should be allowed to make his contribution without continual interruptions from a sedentary position.

Dr. Turner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Given the great concern of farmers in East Anglia about the outbreak of classical swine fever and the present immense concerns about animal disease and the foot and mouth outbreak, the House and the Minister should reflect on what should happen to diseased animals in future. New clause 1 would introduce a regulated scheme under the control of the Secretary of State for the safe disposal of sick and dead animals.
Surely one of the lessons that we should learn from the past few years is that we must take greater care when dealing with sick animals. If we had a scheme that required animals to be checked by a vet, would not some of the recent outbreaks have been detected earlier than they were? We have the bones of a good scheme, but I am not sure that it is ideal as currently phrased. It should not be limited to animals that would hitherto have been collected. I believe that there is an argument for a national scheme for the disposal of diseased and fallen stock.

Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but does he agree with me that this debate is not about what our views might be on hunting but about the safe disposal of stock? It is about farming and preventing further bills for the farming community.

Dr. Turner: That is precisely the point that I was trying carefully to make. There is a danger that the new clause will be seen as part of some other argument and debate. The House would do well to consider it in the broader context of the impact of animal disease.

Mr. Hogg: I am sure that we welcome the hon. Gentleman's support, but does he agree that, if we have such a scheme, the cost should not fall on the livestock producer?

Dr. Turner: I note that the new clause tabled by Conservative Members states that the charges should meet the cost of the scheme. This issue should be debated, because such a scheme is clearly in the national interest. Measures that would enable speedier detection of the problems to which I have referred could contribute to the safety of our agriculture industry.

Mr. David Drew: The answer to this problem is to rebuild the knacker industry, which was the

traditional way of getting rid of dead stock in this country and in many parts of the world. That could be done within existing means.

Dr. Turner: I am less certain of that than is my hon. Friend. Given that the scheme could be widely drawn, there is no reason why there should not be alternatives and there would be good arguments for tightening up on notification before disposing of fallen stock. I hope that the Minister will carefully explain why it would not be sensible to consider the new clause more carefully, subject to amendments made elsewhere.
Those who argue the case for compensation are in great danger of over-gilding the lily. Many decisions made in Parliament on the rules and regulations under which people have to operate routinely put those people to expense. Indeed, we sometimes put people out of work, but we do so because we have good reason. Pest control has been mentioned. The pesticide and pharmaceutical industries exist in such an environment that should a perceived danger—let alone an actual one—become apparent, the House would think it responsible to act without discussing what compensation should be given to companies that would have to replace their manufacturing processes and that had invested heavily in research funding.

Mr. Baker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner: I shall develop my point before taking an intervention; I shall be happy to do so when I have made clear what I am trying to say. There is no automatic right to compensation when the House legislates to change employment or profit opportunities. On the other hand, when we took guns from people, we gave them the value of their gun. When the state takes from its citizens, there is a case for defining narrowly, not broadly, and the amendments are insupportable—a lawyer's nightmare would result from proceeding on such a basis. They are widely drawn because they are part of an important and emotional debate.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend mentions handguns, to which I referred earlier. He will no doubt recall that there was considerable debate about compensation, which he rightly said was paid for the market value of guns, but dealers were not compensated for loss of profits or future business. A limit was put in place.

Dr. Turner: That is precisely the point that I was seeking to make, and the Minister has added directly to it.

Mr. Baker: I understand that compensation should not be given when Parliament legislates; equally, I understand why compensation should be paid, but where is the consistency? How can it be right that mink farmers were compensated when no compensation is proposed in the Bill? What is the difference? Can the hon. Gentleman answer that point? Was it wrong to compensate mink farmers?

Dr. Turner: At this distance, I do not remember the details of the compensation and I do not like to make up an answer, but, as the Minister pointed out, there is a distinction between paying for guns that were taken and


compensating manufacturers who could no longer make them or dealers who could no longer sell them. My problem with supporting the amendments is that they are much closer to the latter.
The amendments carry an implication that would be the equivalent of compensating not only those from whom we took guns, but shopkeepers who could no longer sell them and the manufacturers who could no longer make a profit from selling them. That is the distinction that I draw.

Mr. Öpik: I do not seek to be unhelpful, but is the hon. Gentleman saying that, despite his concerns about the construction of amendment No. 36, a debate should be held on compensation? If so, am I right to say that he is describing where he would draw the line and that, even if I would draw that line somewhere else and although the practical outcomes would be different, we agree that there is a principle at stake?

Dr. Turner: The short answer is yes. I accept that a debate should be held about the principle, but my problem is that the amendments strike the wrong balance. We must be careful, as we were with mink farmers, and we must consider whether people are able to diversify and reuse their materials. For example, many who argue for the banning of hunting say that it could be replaced by drag hunting. We should debate the nature of the compensation—

Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Turner: I must finish.
There is a nub to the argument. That should be addressed, and I hope that the Minister will do so. The amendments are far too widely drawn and are part of the bigger battle rather than part of a careful look at whether compensation should be paid when it is clear that harm is being done and that those to whom harm is being done have no alternatives.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I suppose that we can give one cheer, but no more than that, for what might be the valedictory address of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). He at least had the good grace to recognise that there is something to the case that has been advanced, but I am one of those who finds this a particularly sad day.

Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is being characteristically generous to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner). Is not it his interpretation that the hon. Gentleman began his speech supporting compensation, saw the Minister frowning at him intensely and retreated at a rapid rate of knots? Which press release will the hon. Gentleman issue in King's Lynn?

Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not know how many more press releases the hon. Gentleman will be able to issue in King's Lynn because before too long Mr. Henry Bellingham will grace these Benches again. Although it is always appropriate to introduce a note of levity to any debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is particularly good at that, I find this a

sad day—indeed, a grotesque day. All around the countryside, farmers are facing ruin. All around the country, farmers are wondering not whether they will be compensated under the Bill, but whether they will survive at all.
We should be debating those grave issues, so it is grotesque for the Government to set aside a whole day to debate this mean, spiteful, vindictive, unnecessary and meddlesome legislation. The Government talk about human rights and civil liberties, yet they seek to extinguish the rights and liberties of some of the most decent, law-abiding people this country knows, many of whom are poorly paid.
In many ways, the most telling comments came from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who has taken a distinguished and a distinguishable line in all our debates on hunting. He described them with a simple word, saying that they are about fairness. That is what our debates are about: being fair to people whom we are attacking.
I am not one of those who have been deluded into thinking that tonight we can convert Labour Members sufficiently to defeat the Bill on Third Reading. No, the Bill will be passed and the steamroller majority to which I referred in the earlier debate will be brought into play. There will be honourable exceptions, such as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I am extremely sorry that my fellow Staffordshire Member will no longer represent part of the county of Isaak Walton after the election.
Apart from a few honourable exceptions, Labour Members will go into the Lobby in serried ranks to carry the Bill—which will be an act of appalling injustice if adequate compensation is not provided for those who will be deprived of their livelihoods.
I hope that the Minister will demonstrate clearly that he understands the points that have been made. He has already apologised for one extremely inapposite analogy, in which he sought to equate what we are discussing with burglary—he withdrew that, which was good—but he did not really face up to the question of compensation. Members of the official Opposition and Liberal Democrats have made a number of points about that: we have been at one on compensation, although we may take different lines on hunting. I think that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for instance, is wholly on our side.
We have talked about handguns, and the compensation provided under the very silly legislation introduced by a Government whom, in other respects, I was prepared to support. I said at the time that I thought the legislation unnecessary and silly, but the fact remains that those deprived of handguns were given compensation—albeit, perhaps, less than they should have received. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned an earlier Bill under which, much more justifiably in my view, other firearms were taken away. In that case, too, proper compensation was provided.
Compensation has been provided in other instances, the most recent being the Government's Bill banning mink farming. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme rightly spoke of the terrible depredations caused by mink in the countryside, particularly at the expense of the angling community. In doing so, she in effect appealed to the Government to be consistent. They have compensated


those who were farming mink; they must now compensate those who will suffer from the activities of mink if hunting is not allowed.
The Minister must face up to these issues. In example after example, the Government have shown that they do not understand the countryside, and do not appreciate the problems faced by people there. I hope that my hon. Friends will lose no opportunity to point out to their farming and other constituents just how far removed the Government are from an understanding of the countryside. There is, however, just a small chance for the Minister to salvage a little honour.

Mr. Soames: He can drop the Bill.

Sir Patrick Cormack: We know he will not do that.

Mr. Soames: He might!

Sir Patrick Cormack: That would be wonderful. Failing that, though, the Minister can at least show that he recognises the justice of the case being made for compensation.
Many of my hon. Friends have referred to the absence of any Agriculture Minister. One should be present. The issue we are debating is admittedly peripheral, given that we are debating it at a time of grave crisis in the countryside; but there should nevertheless be a Minister present to recognise the havoc that the Bill will cause. Where is the Minister? Where is a member of the ministerial team? Why cannot this Minister send his parliamentary private secretary—to whom he was talking a while ago—to find an Agriculture Minister, and explain that there is a demand in the House for an Agriculture Minister to come and listen to the debate?

Mr. David Heath: There is only agriculture spokesman present, and that is me.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I am delighted that an agriculture spokesman is present. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will happily produce one ourselves the moment a Minister enters the Chamber. Opposition Members are slightly different, of course, in that we have a genuine understanding of the plight of the countryside and of what the countryside is all about.
If we do not receive an adequate response to our basic call for compensation, the Government will have covered themselves in dishonour and obloquy, and will be remembered and castigated in the countryside for generations.

Mr. Rendel: In many respects, I have considerable sympathy with the principles behind the new clause and amendments. I sympathise with the case for a scheme to deal with fallen stock, given that the Bill would remove the methods currently available to some farms. I also sympathise with the call for compensation. I believe, however, that the way in which the new clause and amendments address those issues leaves much to be desired.
I agree with a good deal that was said by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), especially in regard to the new clause. If there is a case for a

Government scheme to deal with fallen stock, that case must surely rest largely on the importance of ensuring that diseased stock is handled carefully and properly, and that any disease carried by fallen stock does not spread. It can be applied equally well to fallen stock on farms where there happen to be hunts at present, and to fallen stock on farms where there are no hunts. If there is to be a scheme, it should surely involve all fallen stock rather than, as new clause I clearly states, fallen stock
which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.
I feel that that aspect of the new clause should rule it out.
Even now, the collecting of fallen stock by hunts leads to what is, in a sense an unfair relation between one farm and another. Some farms can dispose of fallen stock rather more cheaply than others. If hunting is abolished, that will no longer exist.
There is, of course, a case for saying that the finances of farming will be affected. We ought to ensure that there is a cheap way in which farms can dispose of fallen stock, or else introduce another form of compensation scheme so that farmers' incomes do not drop unnecessarily. Providing only for areas that are currently lucky enough to contain hunts that can collect their fallen stock comparatively cheaply, however, would simply continue the current unfairness.
I think that there is a good case for compensating those whom the Bill puts out of jobs. It is true that there are precedents in both directions. Presumably the question of redundancy payments would arise: not much compensation might be necessary. In any event, the amendments involved do not just cover those who would be put out of jobs. Amendment No. 36 in particular clearly refers to compensation for loss of stock as a result of, for example, foxes taking stock after the abolition of hunting. Amendment No. 40 is slightly less clear in this respect, but I assume that its reference to losses would also mean compensation for farmers who lost stock when a fox got into the henhouse. I do not think there is much of a case for that: after all, henhouses are attacked by foxes now, regardless of whether hunting takes place in the areas concerned.
There are strong arguments for the proposition that, if hunting is abolished, the fox population is likely to fall. I believe that farmers will take it upon themselves to reduce the fox population by, for example, shooting more foxes. Clear arguments have been advanced by the pro-hunting lobby that one reason why the fox population is high is that hunting exists. If that is a valid argument—I believe it to be so to some extent—once hunting has been abolished, there should be less reason for people to be compensated as a result of foxes taking stock. Therefore, I do not see that there is a good argument for that.
6.30 pm
Indeed, it will be impossible to say whether a particular attack by a fox on a henhouse would or would not have taken place had hunting still been in existence. Who can say which foxes would have been hunted and killed had hunting not been abolished? That aspect of the two compensation schemes rules them out, too.

Mr. Leigh: I must apologise because, in an earlier intervention, I may have inadvertently misled the House.


I was trying to work out exactly what the cost would be to the farming community if the fallen stock service provided by the hunts were taken away. I was trying to extrapolate figures from the Cobham report, which estimated that the total number of carcases handled annually by all packs—fox, deer and hare—was 415,000. I understand that it is reasonable to suggest that a knacker man would levy a charge of approximately £70 for the collection of a cow or a horse. I was simply multiplying 415,000 by £70. If we do that, we will get a very large figure.
That is the figure that I put to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), but I accept that that might be an exaggeration. I think that the case is interesting enough without having to resort to extrapolation. I shall try to share without information I have. The costs involved are an interesting fact, especially today, when the farming community is reeling from the impact of further costs imposed on it by the foot and mouth epidemic.
The national survey of hunts has found that, in the past 12 months, hunts collected 48,000 nimals. The average price difference for collection by other means is £50 per beast, which means that the cost of collecting cows and horses alone would impose an a iditional burden of £2,400,000 per annum on farmers. This is a considerable sum.
The Cobham report calculated that 179 hunts handled 352,000 carcases in 1995, an average of 2,035 carcases per hunt. When the work of the harrier and beagle packs that also collected fallen stock was taken into account, it came to the figure of 415,000. The national survey of hunts records that 200 of the packs surveyed currently provide a fallen stock service. Those hunts handled a total of 366,000 carcases in the previous is 12 months at an average cost to each hunt of £18,001 per annum.
The question is complicated by the fact that the hunts make some charge. In recent years many of them have not been able to provide a completely free service. Some of them charge £20 for cows and horses, £10 per 50 kg of pig, £5 for each sheep and nothing for calves. One will see from those figures and facts that it is quite a complicated story.
I take on board the interesting point made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) If one is devising a compensation scheme, one will have to have some cognisance of the fact that the service is not available in all parts of the country. Presumably, when they produce such an amendment, Opposition spokesmen are prepared to negotiate on the issue. If the Minister comes back with good arguments about why the amendment may not be fair in all the circumstances, the Opposition will be prepared to withdraw it. I accept that he is a Home Office Minister, not an Agriculture Minister, but presumably the relevant information can be passed to him. It is incumbent on him to share with the House exactly what is going on in the countryside, how many of the carcases are being collected and what total cost would fall on the farming community.
I am happy to take back the figure that I gave earlier. I was trying to work it out as an Ordinary Back Bencher, but the Minister will have much more accurate information. I wish that he could share it with the House.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Before my hon. Friend moves on, can he pick up a point that was

made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)? He talked about a level playing field, but he missed the point that a ban, and therefore the elimination of the fallen stock service, would have a disproportionate impact in areas with a particularly heavy livestock population such as in my patch, north Shropshire, and in Cheshire, the south-west or parts of Wales. The impact would be devastating in areas where there is a heavy concentration of livestock. Perhaps more arable areas such as Newbury will not be so badly affected.

Mr. Leigh: That is a fair point. I must accept that, if hunting is abolished and the fallen stock service vanishes, the type of area that I represent, a very arable area, could probably take the measure on board, leaving aside for the moment the other problems that agriculture is facing. We are not a livestock area. I accept the point that, for hon. Members representing livestock areas, the impact of the end of the fallen stock service may be much more severe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury, who is a fair man, would accept that point and that, in certain parts of the country, the measure could have a serious effect on farmers who rely on that service.
I hope that the Minister will be able to share with the House exactly how the service can be replaced. The argument has been made several times, but it must be emphasised: surely, at this time of all times, whatever our views on hunting, we do not want to impose a further cost on farmers. When the farming community is going through a particularly sensitive and traumatic time, it would be unfair for the House of Commons and for Ministers to send out the message that they are ignoring the problem; that it is just a minor one that could be swept under the carpet. The Minister must come back with a sensible response. He must not simply dismiss our arguments, but accept that the collection of fallen stock is a valuable service and that, should it disappear, something must be done to replace it.
There has been a lot of argument about the number of jobs that will be affected. Those who support the Bill argue that the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of it is much less than the number alleged by the Countryside Alliance, but Burns accepts that between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs depend on hunting. Obviously, an additional number of part-time employees may lose their jobs. That brings the full-time equivalent jobs lost to anything up to 13,600. That is a very large number.
I accept that, when Ministers are dealing with such a debate, they must tread carefully because the one thing that worries them more than anything else is arguments about compensation. The figures are potentially enormous and the Government do not want to be stuck on that particular needle. I understand where the Government are coming from, but they must understand that the people involved often earn very small salaries—that point has been made many times. A lot of them may earn about £10,000 a year. They may have jobs that are difficult to relate to any other activity. For them, the loss of hunting will be a devastating blow.
The proposed ban on hunting is different from many other bans. Certainly, it is unfair to equate it with the abolition in the 19th century of cock fighting or bear baiting. Those were minor activities carried out by groups of people who were simply interested in viewing animals being torn apart. Those activities did not offer full-time equivalent jobs to up to 16,000 people. They were not


traditional activities. Foxhunting is quite a different matter. The Government must seriously address the issue of what will happen to those people. How they will find other jobs? How will they be retrained, and at what total cost to them?
The Burns report, which is very fair, honestly attempted to try to examine both sides of the issue. It stated:
In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels.
I appreciate that Ministers do not want to set a precedent and that they have to he responsible for the public purse, and all those other arguments, but I hope that they will give some hope to those people. As hon. Members have said, there are precedents for compensation. Section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, for example, which is the Government's own legislation, states:
The appropriate authority may (and, in the case of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall) by order make a scheme for the making of payments by that authority to persons in respect of income and non-income losses incurred by them as a result of ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of section 1, to carry on their businesses".
There is no doubt that the Hunting Bill, if enacted, will be on all fours with section 5(1) of the 2000 Act. For better or for worse, although I would regret it, Parliament may in its wisdom decide that those 8,000 full-time jobs have to go. Parliament took a similar decision on fur farming, which accounted for far fewer jobs. Perhaps the Government found it easy to be generous in that case because fewer jobs were involved. Nevertheless, Parliament and the Government took the decision to stop fur farming, and quite rightly said that they had to compensate people.
The fur farming compensation scheme is also very different from other previous proposed compensation schemes, such as those for BSE and natural disasters, and perhaps including the foot and mouth disaster that we have been talking about this week. Those are natural disasters. The Government do not will BSE or foot and mouth on the nation; they have to try to cope with those difficult problems.
Ministers can create strictly constrained compensation schemes, and they are very anxious not to open the floodgates to wider compensation schemes. However, in all fairness, when Parliament deliberately takes a decision to abolish, for example, fur farming, hunting or—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said—self-loading rifles, is there not an obligation on Parliament to pay compensation?

Mr. Bercow: I accept my hon. Friend's point that there is a difference in scale between fur farming and hunting, and the compensation that might be required. However, does he agree that it would be outrageous and despicable if the Government were to take the view that they would pay for the principle of equity only if they thought that they could afford the price?

Mr. Leigh: That is a very fair, rational and ethical point. I was trying to deal with the practicalities of what

the Government can or cannot afford to do. If the Government have decided to abolish hunting—they have provided Parliament with the means of abolishing it—there is no way in which I would ever be able to persuade the Minister to compensate those who are losing their sport, those whose hunting horses are no longer needed or anyone else who is affected by abolition. I would never get away with that argument with the hon. Gentleman—who is a tough but fair-minded Minister.
Precisely because he Minister is fair-minded, however, I think that there may be some hope of persuading him that if Parliament takes a decision affecting people employed full time in what has hitherto been a perfectly respectable and legal occupation, a moral injunction would be placed on the Government to provide some type of compensation. Who am I talking about? Very often, they are in very modest occupations, such as groom, farrier, saddler, kennel huntsman, or gamekeeper. They may find it very difficult to find another job.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has talked about the moral case for the Government to provide compensation, but has he considered that there may be a legal case for providing it? Has he considered the 1986 Lithgow v. United Kingdom case—which clarified the point not only that people may be deprived of their possessions only in exceptional circumstances, when it is in the public interest to do so, but that compensation should be paid except in exceptional circumstances? Does he think that if the Government were to proceed with the Bill without compensation provisions, it could give rise to a challenge in the European Court of Human Rights?

Mr. Leigh: I think that that is a very fair point. In his reply, the Minister—who is a Home Office Minister, not a MAFF Minister—could try to deal with it. I have no doubt that the Government are open to challenge on the matter in the European Court of Human Rights. Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights provides:
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Ministers have to try to convince the House, and, presumably—if they proceed with the ban—the European Court, that they can satisfy the provisions of article 1 of protocol 1. It is not good enough for the Minister to brush aside the issue and say, "My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put his imprimatur on the Bill, as is required by human rights legislation. Everything is all right, chaps; do not worry. There is nothing to worry about." I think that there is a lot to worry about. If I were a Minister, I would certainly be worried about a challenge being made in the European courts. A hunting ban would, for example, interfere with the rights of landowners.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hesitate to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, who might pull out his Hansard on me, however, he will be aware that the European convention is now, of course, part of United Kingdom law. If the


point that he is making were taken, it would not have to be dealt with in Europe, as in the past, but could be dealt with in our own courts.

Mr. Leigh: I happily concede that point, which is a fair one. The Government may well be taken to law in our own courts.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend will be aware that, under the European convention on human rights, which has now been incorporated into our own legislation, every Bill passed by Parliament has to have a certificate stating that the legislation conforms with that convention. If what he is saying is correct, dogs he think that the Minister might have difficulty issuing such a certificate for this Bill?

Mr. Leigh: That is precisely the point that I made a moment ago. When we raise issues in this type of debate, the Minister replying may say, "Of course that point has been dealt with; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued a certificate", as if that were the end of the argument. Civil servants do not seem to brief Ministers to reply to the legal issues that have been raised.
I believe that a ban could be in breach of protocol 1 because it would interfere with the property rights of landowners who participate in hunts on their own land. In reply to the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton Brown) that such a ban could be deemed by the courts as an interference with "substance of ownership" and with the "peaceful enjoyment" of those possessions, such a right is guaranteed in the first sentence of article 1.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mentioned the case of Lithgow v. United Kingdom, which I do not want to deal with in detail. However, without trying to get into a long legal debate with the Minister, it would be very interesting if, with the help of those who advise him in these matters, he could tell us that Lithgow does not apply in this case. The European convention states that deprivation of possessions is acceptable only if it is in the public interest and conforms to international law or practice. Will the Minister say whether he believes that the European Court, or our courts, would interpret that to mean that a ban on hunting—which is a departure from existing practice—was in the public interest?
All such matters will be determined later in the courts if the ban on hunting comes into force, but I shall end with two brief points.

Mr. Gummer: Does my hon Friend realise the seriousness of what he has just said? In the past, Britain has led the rest of Europe in matters of human rights and individual freedom. Although I very often disagree with my hon. Friend about matters European, it seems to me that we ought to be the leaders in that regard: we should not rely on the European Court to protect human rights that, historically, we have protected for ourselves. My hon. Friend is saying that the Government are doing something that no previous Governmetent would have done, and that British citizens will have to appeal to the European Court for protection. Is he fully cognisant of how serious a matter that is?

Mr. Leigh: That is why the issue is so important. We must pause and hold our breath for a moment to consider

the issue raised by my right hon. Friend. Britain is one of the freest countries in Europe. As far as I know, Parliament has never decided unilaterally to take away the traditional rights of a quarter of a million people—and certainly the jobs of 8,000 people—simply because the Government believed that those people are acting unethically.
The proposal to ban hunting represents a major step. Before they proceed, hon. Members must be aware of the legal arguments involved. Those arguments can be dismissed as mere lawyer's talk, but what is the law for? The law is something very precious, whose purpose is to protect freedom and traditional liberties. That is why we have it.
The Government may have shot themselves in the foot on this matter. They have made it even easier for people to appeal to the European convention and other authorities. If this Bill is enacted, it could well fall foul of that convention.
However, let us talk not of laws, lawyers, conventions and Europe, but concentrate instead on ordinary people and the English countryside. At present, struggling farmers receive a free service. I accept that that service is not available throughout the country, and that in certain circumstances a nominal charge may be made, but the service exists. The Bill will take away that service.

Mr. Soames: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not merely that the service will be taken away, but that it is irreplaceable? There is no other infrastructure in the countryside to cope with the problem of fallen stock. Are not the Government therefore shooting themselves in the foot in a major way?

Mr. Leigh: One Labour Member attended the debate for a short time and in a throwaway remark said that the knacker industry would take care of the problem. I wonder whether that hon. Gentleman knows what is happening to the knacker industry in rural areas, or to small rural abattoirs. I wonder whether he has tried to visit one recently—if he could find one that still exists. If the fallen stock service is removed, can the knacker industry cope?
I am prepared to accept that I do not have access to all the figures, but common sense suggests that removing the free service provided by hunts might mean that what remains of the knacker industry will promptly up its charges.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) refers represents a Scottish constituency. Was not that hon. Gentleman imposing his prejudice on my English constituents, and those of my hon. Friend, whereas we have no say about what goes on in regard to this matter north of the border?

Mr. Leigh: When Opposition Members make a reasonable point such as that, Ministers say merely that this Parliament is supreme and that the Scottish Parliament is only a devolved Parliament. In his opening comments, the Minister implied that the Scottish Parliament is only a semi-Parliament, or half a Parliament. However, that does not resolve the problem that we have no control over the knacker industry or hunting in Scotland. Those obvious and powerful points have been made many times, and I need not repeat them.
I make one final plea to the Minister. I do not ask for a general compensation scheme for people who are losing their sport, but I do ask that the Minister be understanding of the plight faced by the 8,000 people on low incomes who will lose their jobs as a result of the Bill.

Mr. Colin Pickthall: The hon. Gentleman is being careful to draw a fairly tight line with regard to who he thinks should be compensated. However, does not he agree with the hon Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that that is not what the amendments do? Amendment No. 36(1)(b) deals with compensation for
damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act.
The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonable point, but is not he speaking against the amendment, which was tabled by Conservative Members and some Liberal Democrat Members?

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that it is terribly important that we do not indulge in debating points when we are dealing with real jobs and real people. Free votes on matters of conscience require hon. Members to develop their own arguments in their own way. We must relate those arguments to real conditions on the ground.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) is a reasonable gentleman. If the Minister were to tell him that the compensation scheme was too widely drawn and that it would cost a lot of money, but that he understood the argument and was prepared to respond positively, I am sure that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would be happy with that reply.

Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group proposal is about the principle of compensation. If the Minister were to say that the Government accepted that there was a case for compensation, we could reply that we were not hung up about the words in our amendment. However, we are committed to the principle of compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) raised some genuine matters that we need to debate.

Mr. Leigh: That is a very fair intervention. I hope that the Minister will think on it. He may not be able to give us even half of what we are asking for tonight, but he is a fair-minded person and will know that many people on low incomes are very worried about losing their jobs. I hope that the Minister, when he replies to the debate, will be able to give them some hope that some compensation may be available to them.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At the outset, may I say that farmers in my very rural Cotswold constituency will not understand why a debate lasting a full parliamentary day is being given to this Bill, when they are surrounded by cases of foot and mouth disease? Cases of the disease have been announced in Wiltshire and Herefordshire. My farmers' livelihood hangs on a thread, and they will not understand why Parliament is discussing this Bill rather than what is, for them, a matter of life and death. However, it has been decreed that we should discuss this matter, so that is what I shall now do.

7 pm
The new clause proposes an alternative method of disposal of fallen stock. Lord Burns, in his comprehensive and seminal work on hunting says, at paragraph 10.60:
In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible act on in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for their kennels.
New clause 1 and amendment No. 40 deal with those two matters.
I do not believe that the Government have properly considered the mattes of fallen stock. In preparation for the debate on the Burns report, I asked the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), two questions. Having given the breakdown of the number of animals that were estimated to be disposed of by hunts, the right hon. Lady said:
No estimate has been made of the cost to the livestock industry of using outlets other than hunt kennels to dispose of carcases. However, the safe disposal of fallen stock is an important issue and officials will continue to liaise with the livestock and disposal industries to examine the best approaches to this issue."—[Official Report, 28 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1123W.]
I have no doubt that the Minister will wish to update us as to what the thinking has been since that reply. Considering that the question was posed against the background of the Burns report, which the Government had had adequate time to consider, I thought that that was an extraordinary answer.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend return to his earlier point about compensbtion being crucial? Is it not true to say that if this were a Bill to ban bingo in cities, the party that would be the first to demand that those concerned with bingo—the people who open the doors, take the money and run the operation—were compensated would be the Labour party? But apparently, because it takes place in the countryside, hunting does not count.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend makes some extremely telling remarks [Interruption.] Labour Members laugh. They laugh at the fact that they have produced a Bill that will deprive a substantial number of people of their livelihood without compensation. If that is not a disgrace, I do nut know what is.
The actions of the members of the governing party will be scrutinised carefully by those in the countryside when they consider, very shortly, how to cast their vote, and I think that the governing party will get a big shock. Voters will be deeply influenced by what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday in relation to the foot and mouth outbreak, and they will certainly be influenced by the conduct of the Gorernment in this debate.
The second question that I asked in preparation for the debate on the Burns report was to the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—now the Minister of State, Department of Social Security. I asked what alternative arrangements had been made for considering the disposal of fallen stock and the destruction of animal casualties if hunting were banned. The Minister replied:
There are already arrangements for disposing of fallen stock and the destruction of animal casualties other than via hunt kennels. Disposal can be by rendering at an approved rendering plant, incineration or burial".—[Official Report, 17 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 278W.]


Let us deal with those three possibilities. Unless the Minister can tell us otherwise, we will assume that the 200 hunts that currently deal with fallen stock handle 415,000 carcases in the course of a year. That is a considerable number of carcases, and it will require a considerable quantity of alternative disposal methods, knackers' yards and knacker men to deal with them. I am a farmer—it is in the register of members' interests—and I know that knacker men deal with animals which have, for example, a broken leg from an accident in the field. If those animals have to be loaded up into some form of transport to be hauled miles to the nearest slaughterhouse or facility that is licensed to take them, there will be a serious animal welfare problem.
In the past few days, since the fool and mouth problem began, we have seen how easy it is for virulent diseases to be spread as animals are transported from one end of the land to the other to be slaughtered. The increased journeys that the animals have to endure constitute an animal welfare problem, but the spread of disease is a real problem as well.

Mr. Paterson: I am loth to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow, but there is an important distinction to be made here. In relation to this Bill we are talking largely about animals that are completely healthy. Dairy cows that have slipped in the yard because the ground is icy or that have died giving birth are impossible to move. The whole point about the hunt service is that the hunt staff come round immediately, within half an hour, and put the animal down, on the spot, without causing distress.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend, who understands these matters better than most hon. Members, is entirely right. The hunts offer an animal welfare-friendly service that is second to none. It would be a retrograde step if that service were in any way disrupted.
The idea, voiced by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), that hunts are somehow peddling diseased animals that should not be fed to hounds, is a despicable slur on the hunting industry, which is very reputable. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence, he should report it to the local trading standards officer, who will investigate it immediately. The fact that he has been unable to produce any evidence today shows the poverty of his case.

Mr. Gummer: No one will take the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) seriously given that he cannot tell the difference between a forelock and a fetlock.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The hon. Member for Pendle clearly does not understand the industry and, indeed, the countryside—which he purports to represent—with any great depth of knowledge or feeling for those who work there. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) says, from a sedentary position, "Bitter and twisted." That is his description, not mine.
Serious issues surrounding the disposal of stock have been touched on tangentially in the debate. One is how the fallen stock will be dealt with. I intervened on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to ask what will happen to fallen stock. There is legislation preventing the burying of stock, and I

sincerely hope that it will not be contravened. However, some of the livestock farmers on the top of the Cotswolds in my constituency are hanging on by a thread. Every day, extra costs are likely to be imposed on them by the foot and mouth crisis. The Government, insensitively, are talking about compulsory insurance costs. Disposal will be yet another cost, and it may be that, to remain in business, a livestock farmer will find it necessary to contravene a regulation and bury his livestock.
Mention has also been made of animals being left to rot in the field. Many farmers are facing bankruptcy. That is not an exaggeration; a parliamentary answer indicates that 41,000 people have lost their jobs in the agricultural industry in the past two years. There is clear evidence that many farmers are going out of business. If they are going out of business, they may well be forced to leave animals to rot in the fields or the buildings where they have fallen. That would be very detrimental for the country. If the Minister proposes to ban hunting and, therefore, to put a stop to the disposal of fallen stock by the hunts, he has to come up with some clear answers.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend would receive great reinforcement for his argument from page 63 of the Burns report, which contemplates precisely what he suggests—namely, that fallen stock will either be burnt or buried, with potential risks to the environment.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving the House a helpful reminder of a paragraph of which I was, of course, aware. If the Minister needs further reminders, he might recall that, when the landfill tax was introduced—making it more difficult to dispose of rubbish by landfill—the incidence of illegal fly tipping greatly increased. If that argument does not persuade the Minister that my suggestion about what is likely to happen in the countryside will be borne out, he should think carefully.
Amendment No. 40 deals with compensation. It has already been made clear that compensation has been awarded in other cases. When we discussed the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill, the Government were perfectly prepared to compensate fur farmers for the loss of business—and rightly so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, under section 5(1) of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, the Minister is required to provide compensation for fur farmers who go out of business.
If the Government are going to put out of employment the 6,000 to 8,000 people whom Burns estimates will be directly affected if hunts are put out of business, it would be wholly immoral not to compensate them. The Government are only too keen to compensate the car industry when its workers are put out of their jobs. Why is it that, through sheer prejudice, they do not even consider compensation for people who will lose their jobs under this Bill?
Increasingly, huge numbers of the urban population are becoming aware of the current suffering of the rural population. The Government must think carefully about compensation. To introduce a Bill with no provision for compensation will cause large waves of sympathy for people in the countryside.

Mr. Soames: As my hon. Friend is a farmer who also represents an important fanning constituency, does he


agree that many farmers can no longer afford proper veterinary care—to their great sadness and the bad luck of their animals? Without the hunts, there is no chance that they could afford services to dispose of their fallen stock.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is right. He, too, understands the agriculture industry better than most Members of the House. For example, if a farmer has calves that are worth less than the auctioneer's selling fee of £1, he cannot afford to call out a vet at a call-out fee of at least £25 before the cost of drugs. Such circumstances cause severe difficulty. Currently, hunts provide a subsidised service at a realistic cost.
No doubt the Minister will tell us what alternative arrangements are to be set up, but those arrangements will have to be paid for at an economic cost. That is likely to increase considerably the current costs of dealing with fallen stock. The bureaucracy and inspection involved in any Government scheme are likely hugely to increase its cost. My hon. Friend makes a good point. An animal welfare problem is already brewing in the countryside. If no cheap method is available to dispose of fallen stock, the problem will increase substantially.
7.15 pm
The Minister and other hon. Members have talked about the moral aspects, but there is also a strong legal case. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) recognised that when he had to take extremely difficult decisions on BSE compensation. Sadly, that incident cost the taxpayers well over £3 billion. We never want it to be repeated. I hope that the present foot and mouth epidemic will not grow too much, but I suspect that it will and that the Government will find that they have to compensate a large number of people whose stock has been slaughtered. If that is right in those circumstances, surely it is right to compensate people who lose their jobs as a result of a ban on hunting.
As I pointed out earlier, the Lithgow v. United Kingdom case in 1986–8 EHHR 329—clarified the conditions under which compensation had to be paid. The Government should follow the dictum without having to be told to do so by the European Court, even if the convention is to be incorporated in our own law: it rightly states that it is only acceptable to deprive people of their possessions or livelihood when that is strictly in the public interest. There could, of course, be a severe argument as to whether it is strictly in the public interest to ban hunting. The Lithgow judgment states that deprivation of the use or peaceful enjoyment of possessions without compensation is justified only in exceptional circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I cannot for the life of me see that the prejudice shown by the Labour Government and their Back Benchers in banning hunting could possibly be construed as being in accordance with the requirement that such things should be done only in exceptional circumstances. These are not exceptional circumstances; this is a measure that merely meets a prejudice.
The Government must think carefully. They are about to undergo a severe test with the electorate. No doubt, the electorate will make their views known—especially in

rural areas. People in those areas will listen carefully to this debate. The Minister would do himself a great deal of justice if he reconsidered. The issue is one of conscience, not of spite or prejudice—as the hon. Member for Pendle would have us believe. It is one thing for the Government to impose a ban on hunting, even though that is wholly reprehensible; it is something wholly different—a prejudice that is without precedent—to impose such a ban without compensation. I urge the Minister to think again.

Mr. Baker: As many Members know, I support a ban on hunting and want it to be implemented as soon as possible. Indeed, my criticism of the Government—of late—has been that they have so delayed the introduction of the Bill that it is unlikely to reach the statute book before the end of this Parliament. We are thus, to some degree, wasting our time in debates on the matter in this place and elsewhere.
I preface my remarks with that statement of my belief because I have some support for the principles espoused today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. With respect to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) the argument is not one of Government versus Opposition. The matter is subject to a free vote. Members from all parties speak from different perspectives.
It is not helpful to those of us who want to argue about compensation and about the impact of fallen stock on the farming industry to present the matter as a Labour-Tory argument. If it is, the Tories will lose—the number of Members demonstrates that. If we can go back to arguing about principles, there is a chance that those of us who hold the same views might make some progress.
I have some sympathy with new clause 1. It is about farming; it is not about hunting, bingo or anything else. I do not criticise the Government for the fact that no Agriculture Ministers are in the Chamber. With due respect, they have rather a lot to do at present. I should be extremely disappointed if they had to sit in this place for hours discussing a measure on hunting instead of trying to deal with foot and mouth disease, which greatly affects the farming industry in my constituency and elsewhere in the country. I am pleased that they are not in the Chamber.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and his colleagues must, however, acknowledge that there is an impact on farming that should be discussed with their colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Whether or not we are in favour of hunting, surely we must all agree that the removal of current provisions that allow for hunt kennels to deal with fallen stock will have an adverse effect on farmers. That is the fact of the matter, and I, as someone who wants to ban hunting, recognise that.
The farming community is up against the wall at the moment and having a torrid time as a consequence of foot and mouth disease, the legacy of BSE and the drop in farm-gate prices across a range of products, so I do not want to burden it with any more costs now. In fact, if the Minister puts no other scheme in place, the closure of hunt kennels will add to farming costs, but that is not an argument for keeping hunting. My opposition to hunting is based on moral and animal welfare grounds, but we must ensure that the farming community does not suffer as a consequence of any decision by Parliament to ban hunting.
I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) that it is invidious and odd to include in new clause 1 the words
which would have been collected by hunts but for the enactment or coming into force of the Schedule to this Act.
Perhaps those words were included because the new clause would not have been acceptable without them. Nevertheless, fallen stock are an issue for the whole farming industry. I am worried, frcm an environmental perspective, about fallen stock being allowed to rot in the fields or, indeed, being buried, which may affect watercourses. That is not the best way to deal with fallen stock.
Surely, during the past few years we have learned to be a little careful about how we deal with animal health. We cannot be cavalier any more; we have caused ourselves major problems because of our treatment of animals. We must ensure that the best system is in place, and leaving fallen stock to market forces, which appears to be the solution on offer, is not a sensible way forward.
If we were to tell a farmer—no matter how angelic he may be—that he is in a difficult position and his balance sheet is very bad, but we will give him no help at all so he must deal with fallen stock in the the cheapest way possible, it would be a recipe for disaster. That is a farming point for the Home Office Minister, but he must address it in his response, otherwise many of us will have great sympathy for new clause 1. Perhaps its wording is not quite right, but the Minister must say, "Yes, we recognise that there is a problem, and we will do something about it." He has not yet done so.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. He and I differ on whether it is moral to hunt with hounds, but that is irrelevant as the argument that he puts forward is sound. Will he help the House by telling us his views on the alternative to hunt kennels taking fallen stock? How does he believe we should deal with the matter?

Mr. Baker: I have considerable sympathy with new clause 1, which has been tabled by four Conservative Members, but with the caveat referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury which I have just endorsed. New clause 1 seems to be an adequate way to deal with fallen stock. We must find a way to allow farmers to deal with fallen stock safely, without threatening animal health or the environment, and in a way that they are likely to endorse. That is our objective.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on what method might be employed? After all, the hunts offer a subsidised service. If the same service is to be provided elsewhere, someone must pay for it. Will he suggest who might pay for it?

Mr. Baker: Other methods are currently used. Although hunt kennels deal with many animals, other animals are dealt with differently. I refer the hon. Gentleman to new clause 1, tabled by his colleagues, which mentions the
collection and disposal of fallen stock".
I am not particularly bothered about how it is dealt with, provided that the method is safe and that there is no disincentive to farmers to follow the recommended course of action.
I shall deal with a second point—compensation—because I am keen to give the Minister a chance to reply, at length, I hope, to the points that have been made. I ask him to give us a statement of his principle. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) made the case for not giving compensation when the House legislates. He asked why compensation should be paid when the House passed many measures that impact on various people. That is a perfectly respectable philosophical position to adopt, but it is equally respectable to say that when we take away people's livelihoods, compensation should be paid as of right. However, it is indefensible to say that we will pay compensation in certain circumstances, but not in others. That is what the Minister has suggested.
I ask the Minister not to deal with handguns or bingo, or whatever, but to address the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. As a Member of Parliament, I am genuinely troubled that a compensation scheme was introduced for an activity that was legal, that involved people's livelihoods and that the House rightly chose to ban because of the impact on the animals involved.
There is a close parallel with the Bill. I genuinely fail to understand why it is right to compensate fur farmers for their loss of livelihood, but not those who are employed in hunting in any way. I do not understand how that position can be adopted. I hope that the Government did not do so because there were few mink farmers so it did not cost much to compensate them, but many people are involved in hunt kennels, so it would cost a lot to compensate them. That would be a Treasury argument, and I hope such arguments are not being deployed to deal with moral problems. I ask the Minister to make a clear statement on the Government's policy on compensation. When and why is compensation paid? How can he justify including no such proposal in the Bill, when the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 included generous provisions.
I, too, am not a lawyer, but I ask the Minister to respond to the points made on legal advice, as that may help to illuminate the debate. What advice has he been given by Home Office lawyers on the likelihood of a successful challenge to the Bill if the Government are not prepared to include compensation?

Mr. Paterson: Time is getting on and many of the points that I would have made have been made already, so I shall be relatively brief, but I should like to repeat some earlier comments. It is absolutely crazy in the eyes of many people who live in the country that we are debating hunting today, when we are looking at probably the worst crisis that the nation has faced since 1967, with foot and mouth disease. I was about 11 when the last crisis happened, and it was absolutely horrific.
Farmers in my area are absolutely worried stiff. People have stopped travelling around. I cancelled meetings at the weekend. Foot and mouth is the one subject that we should be discussing, but instead we are debating hunting. That is absolutely extraordinary, and the public must think that we are simply mad. We are also mad, given the Government's extraordinary hypocrisy.
I was rung on Saturday afternoon by a man who was desperate; he had 17 carcases in the back of his lorry but was banned from moving them under emergency regulations, so I contacted the private office of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I should be grateful to the Minister if he would listen, rather than talking to his Whip, because this is relevant and he might like to talk to his colleague at MAFF.
I am pleased to say that those in the office were very efficient; they sent a fax to my constituent and gave him a special licence to move those carcases. It is worth quoting paragraph 3 of the licence, because it states:
A carcase to which this licence applies may be moved from the premises on which it is to a rendering plant, a knacker's yard or a hunt kennel.
So the private office—the inner sanctum—of the Minister at the heart of the operation, whom the Government tell us is beavering away on the national crisis, is giving out special licences with the specific instructions that 17 decomposing carcases should, if necessary, be taken to a hunt kennel. That represents the grossest hypocrisy, given that today we are debating the abolition of the free service provided by hunts.
I should like to stress the fact that the service is free to farmers in hunting areas, and it is humane. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who has temporarily left his seat, mentioned that fact. Hunt servants come out immediately as soon as a healthy cow falls down in the yard and breaks her leg. One phone call and the kennel huntsman comes around and puts the animal down humanely. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is in a complete muddle. He is bleating on about diseased animals, but the vast majority of those casualties are healthy animals that suffer from accidents.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: rose—

Mr. Paterson: I should be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman, and I shall try to improve his knowledge.

Mr. Prentice: The hon. Gentleman mentions that his constituents had 17 decomposing carcases in his vehicle. What were the circumstances that led to his constituent having so many decomposing carcases in his vehicle?

Mr. Paterson: That question is extraordinary. We have a national crisis with foot and mouth, and the movement of all beasts has been stopped, except by those who have a special licence. That is why my constituent rang me.

Mr. Prentice: But decomposing?

Mr. Paterson: Within hours, carcases begin to decompose. That is what the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The vast majority of casualties on farms are healthy, and he has not taken that point on board. They are not diseased, and the hunt comes in if an animal has an accident. It is put down swiftly and humanely. [Interruption.] The animals have not got foot and mouth: they are healthy animals. The hon. Gentleman should listen.

Mr. Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should make himself clear.

Mr. Paterson: I am making myself clear. I am talking about healthy animals that have suffered an accident on a farm and are put down in a humane manner. Someone has to dispose of the bodies. At the moment the animal is killed; it then has to be taken away and disposed of.

The hunts provide a free service so that there is no health problem for farm animals or any human beings in the area.
This is a massive problem. Because the Government have made such a middle of the beef export regime that is being reinstated, live calf exports are not allowed. An area such as mine has a large dairy population and large numbers of bull calves have to be put down on the farm.

Mr. Öpik: I think that I understand the confusion of the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). For the sake of the record, it might help if the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) could explain that the 17 carcases were not diseased. If he knows the reason, it might help if he explained why the animals died.

Mr. Paterson: The man who collected the carcases is totally separate from the hunt service and he had them on his premises. Because of the emergency regulations, he was not allowed to move them although he would normally have done so.
The key issue is the volume and the disproportionate impact in rural areas. In my patch, the Wynnstay hunt has disposed of 2,500 calves, the North Shropshire hunt of 2,500 and the South Shropshire hunt of 3,000. Those are very large volumes of material.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To set the record straight, is the hon. Gentleman now telling the House that the 17 decomposing carcases were being held in a knacker's yard and that the knee knackerman wanted to move them to the hunt kennels? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is trying to be clever, and trying to make a muddle out of a desperately serious problem in an area such as mine. He is laughing about it. The man is separate from the hunt service and he collects animals. Those animals were destined for another destination, but they were temporarily frozen in his yard.
As other hon. Members have said, there are parallels to the hunt service, but the key point is that it handles large volumes of material However, it cannot take it all, because of the muddle that the Government have made of the calf scheme. Therefore, the physical problem that the Government are landing themselves with is enormous. The Minister is looking confused, but who is going to dispose of the 2,500 calves that each of those three hunts in my area deals with? Who will do that when the ban goes through?

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make a serious point and we are trying to understand it. I am listening carefully, but I am looking a little bemused because I still do not understand the relevance of the carcases to the point that he wishes to make. I encourage hi n to calm down the rhetoric, if he makes his point, I shall try to answer it.

Mr. Paterson: I shall try in very simple terms to explain that there is a free hunt service and that, in my patch, three separate hunts have taken 2,500 calves each. Because there is such a volume of material, other people also provide a service. In this case, a knackerman had 17 carcases that he had taken from different farms. Because of the emergency regulations, which he was


obeying, they were temporarily frozen, on his van, and he was concerned that they were begin ling to heat up and decompose. He telephoned me and I obtained the licence from the Minister's colleague in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There are two separate services, but the point I am making is that the hunt service has reached its capacity now.

Mr. Garnier: Is not the short point that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave an emergency licence to the knackerman to move these dead animals to the hunt?

Mr. Paterson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Garnier: Oh, haven't I been helpful? I was under the impression that the MAFF licence enabled the knackerman to move the animals directly to the hunt in breach of the banning order. If my hon. Friend has confused me, perhaps he could explain the matter again.

Mr. Paterson: I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend is in a muddle as well. The simple fact is that such a volume of material has to be disposed of that it is not just the hunts that take it away. The hunts are at capacity, and there are other methods. In this case, the knackerman had collected the carcases and was going to take them to a renderer, but he was temporarily stopped. The key point is that, if the Bill is enacted, there will be no service, and the hunts provide an extremely humane, free and efficient service. It will require an enormous state effort to replace it.
I am amazed that the Minister still looks bewildered, but it is a huge physical problem. In areas such as mine with a large livestock population, many animals, sadly, have accidents and have to be disposed of. I am absolutely staggered that the Minister is still in a muddle. He really must talk to his colleagues in MAFF.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am familiar with the role of the hunt. Certainly, my hunt takes fallen stock and often deals with it very efficiently; it provides a service to local farmers. I am very familiar with that process, and I am also reasonably familiar with the restrictions that are being applied. I think that I have grasped the hon. Gentleman's point. Is he saying that if the hunt service disappears, that will remove a proportion of the capacity to deal with fallen stock?
I was trying to figure out the point about the carcases, but I am not sure that they are entirely relevant. The hon. Gentleman is making a separate point with which I shall try to deal. I was perplexed—everyone, including those on the Opposition Front Bench, was perplexed—because we could not figure out the role 0f the carcases. I think that they are a separate matter, and I hope that I have been helpful in trying to clarify the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Paterson: My point is the hypocrisy of a Government who from their inner sanctum recommend that people use the services of the hunt kennels and two days later push through a Bill that will ban that service. I hope that the Minister has taken that point on board,

but I shall write to him with the figures for Shropshire. They are enormous and it is the volume of material that we should consider.

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a serious point of detail on this issue, I shall happily engage in correspondence with him. I will be as helpful as I can.

Mr. Paterson: I am grateful for that offer.
I shall quickly deal with the issue of compensation. Again, there will be a disproportionate effect in rural areas. The Burns report talked about several thousand job losses. That may not sound very many to Labour Members representing urban constituencies, but a small saddler whom I know employs seven people and 75 per cent. of his turnover is devoted to hunting. That firm will close. I know a small family feed merchant that supplies the hunting community. It employs only three people, but it will close completely. That is 100 per cent. devastating for those businesses and those people. The disproportionate effect of the ban has not been considered by Labour Members.
Even employers of significant numbers of people will be affected. A feed merchant who shifts 25,000 to 30,000 tonnes of hay and straw a year employs 12 people, and half those jobs will be lost. That is appalling for the people involved. Labour Members have not taken into account the fact that there will be no public gain from a ban; they merely feel that the toffs may have taken a hit. Such ludicrous prejudice will damage hard-working, sensible and law-abiding people, whom the Minister earlier called burglars. That was outrageous.

Mrs. Golding: The Minister did not.

Mr. Paterson: If the Minister would like to withdraw the comment about burglars, I would be very grateful.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that he has completely traduced what I said. I was intervening on the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who stated the general principle that people should always be compensated if the law were to remove their livelihood. I gave the very bad example of burglars, which I withdrew during the course of the debate. I in no way wish to compare hunters with burglars. That was never my intention. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I sought to do that, he is traducing me. People who hunt in my constituency—many of whom I know well—are good and decent, and I would not put them in that category. My point was entirely different.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister makes a fulsome apology, which I accept wholeheartedly, and I am sorry if I upset him.

Mr. Michael: It is the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) who should apologise.

Mr. Paterson: No; Labour Members are being churlish.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend has got the Minister to agree to consider fallen stock. Will he ask for


an assurance that the loss of livelihood will be taken into account by the Government before the Bill is enacted—if it ever is?

Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. It is not acceptable in a pluralist society to penalise a minority—in this case, by removing the livelihood of law-abiding people without providing compensation—to satisfy the prejudice of a majority.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: New clause 1 and amendment No. 40 relate to the disposal of fallen stock, and to compensation, which is also addressed in amendment No. 36. I take those important matters seriously. However, before I address the specifics, I shall deal with foot and mouth disease. I sympathise fully with the farming community—as I am sure every hon. Member does—following the recent outbreak. No doubt the whole House hopes that it will be contained quickly.
I represent a largely rural constituency and I am well aware of the anxieties felt by the farming community. Thankfully, there have been no reports of foot and mouth disease in my constituency today, but there is much fear and concern among farmers and other constituents.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I am glad that the Minister can report that, but it is not the case in my constituency. Many people cannot understand why their Parliament has to discuss this measure today when there is a crisis in the countryside.

Mr. O'Brien: One or two other hon. Members made that point more aggressively, and I shall deal with it in a moment.
Foot and mouth disease poses a serious threat to livestock farmers throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food informed the House yesterday of the steps that he and his officials have taken to control the disease so that we minimise the disruption and damage that it is capable of causing to the agricultural industry and to rural communities in general.
Some quarters have suggested that we should not enact the Bill when our farmers are facing what could be a grave crisis. Let me repeat that I have every sympathy for our livestock farmers and fully understand their anxieties. I completely support the measures that my right hon. Friend has put in place, which will be debated at greater length tomorrow. However, that does not mean that we should not proceed with the Bill. The issue of hunting with dogs needs to be resolved. The number of private Members' Bills and the amount of parliamentary time that has been devoted to it in the past 20 years bear witness to that fact. The Bill finally gives us the opportunity to deal with the issue. The question of what Parliament will do has been hanging over rural communities for a long time and people want it resolved.
7.45 pm
Foot and mouth disease is taken enormously seriously by hon. Members on both sides of the House, whether they are for hunting or in favour of a ban. It is wrong to suggest, as some hon. Members have got close to doing—

although no one transgressed the line—that the only people who are concerned about the farming community, or foot and mouth disease and its impact, are those who support hunting. People who support a ban are also seriously worried about the problem. The issues are, to some extent, separate However, I appreciate that there is some overlap when it comes to fallen stock.
The Bill will not come into effect until a year after Royal Assent. I am sure we all fervently hope that by that time the problems of foot and mouth disease will be a distant memory. It would be wrong to abandon the Bill now.
New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to make a scheme for the collection and disposal of infirm, diseased or dead animals, which it refers to as fallen stock. The disposal of fallen stock is controlled by the Animal By-Products Order 1999. That specifies a number of permitted disposal routes for fallen stock, including rendering, incineration, disposal via a knacker's yard or hunt kennel and, in restricted circumstances, burial or—appropriately at the moment—burning on-farm.
If the hunts' collection service is withdrawn, farmers will need to use an alternative method of disposal. There are 288 hunt kennels and 73 knackers' yards in Great Britain that can handle fallen stock. The Burns report estimates that 200 hunts disposed of 336,000 carcases in one 12-month period. A small and limited survey by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year suggested that, of the animals that die or are killed on farm, about 40 per cent. of calves, 33 per cent. of adult bovines and 11 per cent. of sheep are disposed of to hunt kennels.

Mr. Soames: We all endorse what the Minister said about foot and mouth disease. We know that he represents an agricultural constituency and that many of his farmers will be as worried as those in my constituency and elsewhere. However, foot and mouth disease has nothing to do with the fallen stock that is covered by the new clause. Livestock that are at risk from the disease are handled by the state veterinary service in a completely different way. My hon. Friends have made it clear that the hunt service is fully stretched and has been tested to the limit in the past two years. Given what the Minister said about the one-year gap, it would be impossible for any organisation to step in and fill that role.

Mr. O'Brien: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. Animals that are affected by foot and mouth disease are dealt with separately. However, as several hon. Members said, many animals that are not diseased might have to be disposed of on the land. It will not be possible to remove or sell some animals. They may be ordinary fallen stock that have been injured or have died without being diseased. In such circumstances, hon. Members have asked what we should do about fallen stock. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is over-demand for the disposal services that the hunt and others provide to get rid of undiseased fallen stock.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have an important point to make. It has been insinuated that hunt kennels take meat that is unfit to feed to hounds. Will the Minister confirm that all hunt kennels that receive fallen stock are licensed by the Animal By-Products Order 1999 and are rigorously inspected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and


Food and trading standard officers? If any offences are committed, those bodies will come down with the full force of the law on hunt kennels.

Mr. O'Brien: I have no problem in confirming that.
While the clause—[Interruption.] I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and I see the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) pointing at him. My hon. Friend was asking questions because he was confused by some of the arguments of Opposition Members. I do not want to rehearse those arguments. The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) even succeeded in confusing those on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps the best thing to do is move on.
The new clause seeks to provide a collection and disposal service for fallen stock that otherwise would be collected by hunt kennels. In pra ctice, it would be impossible to identify which animals went to a hunt kennel and which to a knacker's yard or other disposal facility. The new clause would establish a collection service for what would appear to be all fallen stock.
A difficulty with the new clause is that it seeks to provide a collection and disposal service also for infirm, diseased and dead agricultural animal which are referred to as fallen stock. I am concerned that that would inadvertently open up the possibility for the killing of animals that are not 100 per cent. fit, or animals suffering from a minor ailment where veterinary treatment would be a more appropriate disposal.
The new clause would mean that instead of fallen stock being disposed of by one of the routes that I have mentioned, the Minister would regulate the collection and disposal of fallen stock. It would require the Minister to put in place a collection scheme for dead stock, to set up communication lines for the prompt notification of fallen stock to the body responsible for collection, to arrange for the transport and disposal of fallen stock and to regulate the cost of the scheme.
The Government would need to establish centres for farmers to give notification of fallen stock, to acquire sufficient vehicles to collect the stock promptly, and to ensure that disposal outlets were prepared and capable of receiving stock at that time. Such a collection scheme would require the Government, in effect, to set themselves up as a nationalised industry; otherwise, they would have to contract out. The service would have to be run almost entirely by the Government. It appears that the Opposition are proposing the setting up of a nationalised industry.
I was a little surprised by that. It appears that the clause would transfer the current responsibility in the private sector for waste disposal in the livestock industry to the Government. The Government are keen to see a proper collection service for fallen stock, but we remain of the view that waste disposal should be carried out by the private sector, not by a nationalised industry. It is strange that the Conservative party is proposing nationalisation while we are proposing to keep the service within the private sector. Perhaps that is new Labour.

Mr. David Lidington: Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the alternative methods of disposal, which are burial, subject to strict regulations, and incineration, which is subject both to licensing and the requirement of planning permission, already involve a significant amount of Government intervention and

regulation, and rightly so. The hon. Gentleman will know that clause 2 provides for the schedule to come into force 12 months after Royal Assent. Is he confident that it would be possible within 12 months to set up alternative methods of disposal which would deal with all the carcases that are currently being disposed of by hunts?

Mr. O'Brien: We cannot consider only hunt kennels and their role in the agriculture sector, but I appreciate the fact that many farmers find the free disposal of fallen stock a substantial advantage. We cannot consider in isolation the possible implications of a ban on hunting in relation to the collection of fallen stock. Disposal goes far wider than hunt kennels. As a result of BSE controls, farmers have been facing increased costs in disposing of their fallen stock. As we have heard, there has been a decline in the number of disposal outlets.
Furthermore, the European Commission has proposed a new animal by-products regulation, which is expected to come into force in 2003. As drafted, the regulation would control the disposal of ruminant animals that die on farm. It would introduce environment standards for small incinerators. It would require all premises that collect fallen stock to meet certain standards.
As a consequence, some hunts may be unable or unwilling to continue to provide a fallen stock service to farmers, even if hunting were not banned as a consequence of the proposed legislation. Accordingly, the Government are keen to address the wider issue of fallen stock as a whole, and not only in terms of the impact that the Bill might or might not have.

Mr. Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I will make some progress and then I will give way.
The Government want to facilitate the setting up of a collection and disposal service for fallen stock, but we do not want it to be run as a nationalised industry. I understand that officials at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have had meetings with representatives of the livestock industry and are seeking to discuss and formulate future arrangements for a wider disposal of fallen stock.
I can assure the House that the Ministry takes the issue extremely seriously, as do the House and the Government. We want to work with those affected to ensure that we can provide the most practical and efficient solution to the problem. I cannot predict what form the MAFF solution will take, but I do not believe that matters would be helped by agreeing to a prescriptive clause such as new clause 1.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: With that reassurance, the Government are alive to concerns about the disposal of fallen stock, which go much wider than the possible consequences of the Bill. I invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to consider withdrawing the new clause.

Mr. Baker: rose—

Mr. O'Brien: I promised to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Baker: I welcome the assurance that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is addressing the issue,


and that needs to be done. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that whatever scheme is produced by the Minister will, first, not increase costs to farmers and, secondly, will not increase the dangers of animal health problems or dangers to the environment?

Mr. O'Brien: I wish that, off the top of my head. I could give those categoric assurances. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to do so. These matters must be discussed between the industry and the Ministry. In the past, we have normally taken the view that where an industry produces—I am not sure whether this is the right word—a by-product, which is in this instance fallen stock, it is the responsibility of those who produce the by-product to ensure that it is properly and environmentally sensitively disposed of. I am sure that the Liberal Democrat party would support the "polluter pays" principle. We would apply that sort of approach.
We are aware of and sensitive to the serious problems that are facing agriculture, not just over the past few weeks but over a much longer period. The Government will be much more sympathetic to the problems of the industry and will not merely apply a broad-based principle. I have talked to the farmers in my constituency, and they are concerned about what would happen if the hunt were to go. It is a real issue for them, and one that the Government need to consider in a wider context.
The Bill forms part of the wider issue. If people think that by keeping hunting they will somehow deal with the issues involving fallen stock, they are much mistaken. In considering the European regulations and the wider interest, we can see that the matter needs to be dealt with as a whole.

Sir Robert Smith: Can the Minister clarify a point for me? In the debate two weeks ago on the BSE crisis, there was much talk of joined-up Government and Departments working together. Have his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food co-ordinated effort with regard to the impact of the Bill? Will solutions be in place before the problems are created?

8 pm

Mr. O'Brien: MAFF has been very much involved in the Bill. The Bill was presented in such a way as to ensure that the House had an opportunity to debate three options. MAFF has considered the options and their implications. If—still an "if—the House were to pass the Bill, it would still have to go to the other place, and we are all aware of other issues that might affect it. It may be that we shall have to consider it within the broader context of what we shall do generally about fallen stock. The Bill and other issues will affect farmers with respect to fallen stock. Considering the Bill in isolation would not resolve the problem. The suggestion from some Opposition Members that the Bill represents the whole fallen stock issue is simply nonsense. The issue goes wider, and the farming community deserves a better answer.
I shall give way once more, but I want to make some progress after that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the Minister give us one good reason why he cannot answer the basic

question of what he will do about fallen stock after the Bill has been passed" Who will pay for it? Will he assure us that the farming idustry, which he has admitted is on its knees, cannot pay?

Mr. O'Brien: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to what I said, he would realise that I have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.] Even if he does not accept that, I am going to move on. This matter of fallen stock and farming goes far wider than the Bill. The problems of the farming industry face my constituents every day. The Government seek serious answers to serious problems, but the hon. Gentleman seeks flip solutions. If that is his approach, he is not doing justice to his own constituents.
Amendments Nos 36 and 40 raise another important issue: compensation. The Government take seriously the job losses that may arise in the event of a ban on hunting. The details of such losses were set out in the Burns report, and I need not cite them. No hon. Member wants anyone to lose a job. All those who voted for a ban on hunting will have taken account of the employment implications before they decided how to vote. I certainly weighed that factor before deciding how to cast my vote. I concluded that the House needs to make judgments, as we did on handguns and other issues.
We must consider the wider good of the whole of society. Enactment of a ban must be seen in that context. Whatever passions have been aroused by legislation that has resulted in lost jobs in years gone by, the House has, by and large, sought to do the right thing. The House has considered job losses seriously; that issue was a key factor on Second Reading.
Both amendments would offer compensation at a level set by the Secretary of State, which would be paid to those whose paid employment depended on hunting with dogs. Who are those people? Apart from those directly employed by hunts—even Burns was unable to set an exact number of those people, which suggests some ambiguity—many others might claim to be in that position, particularly if generous compensation were on offer.
What about a farrier who depended on a hunt for 30 per cent. of his business? The business would probably continue, though perhaps with a reduced turnover. Would the owner, or the employees of the business, qualify for compensation? What would happen if a hunt decided, once the ban had come into force, to convert itself into a drag hunt? Why should an employee of that hunt, whose job description and conditions of service might change only slightly, be eligible for compensation?
Amendment No. 36 was tabled by the Middle Way Group and suggests that compensation should be paid in respect of damage caused by species of animals that had previously been hunted by dogs. I do not want to be too unkind about that well-intentioned suggestion, but it is not close to common sense. Foxes and other predators damage crops and livestock. From Burns, we know that in the event of a ban on hunting, other methods of fox control would be used. How it would be possible to say that damage had been caused by a fox that would have been controlled if hunting had still been legal I simply do not know.
Amendment No. 40 was tabled by Opposition Members and seeks to provide compensation for anyone deprived of any service previously provided by hunts. Leaving


aside the possibility of a claim on the public purse for any service unrelated to hunting that a huntsman may once have provided to the population as a whole, where on earth would the line be drawn? As Burns made clear, hunts provide a wide range of services, including voluntary assistance. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to try to assess every claim.
On grounds of practicality alone, I would not recommend that the House make either of the amendments. The Government, as guardians of the public purse—the taxpayer's money—could not, as a matter of principle, support them. The commitments in them would be completely open and would not allow the kind of controls on the public purse that I expect.
In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property. The most notable recent example was firearms compensation, following the tragedy at Dunblane. However, as I have already pointed out, certain dealers in firearms were not compensated for the loss of their profit. We generally have no paid compensation from public funds to those who may have lost their livelihoods as a result of legislation. To go down that route would set a precedent that might have unpredictable consequences if it were done in the way that the amendments propose.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned the compensation scheme for the fur farming industry, which was shut down as a result of the prohibition on fur farming. That case is hardly analogous. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 closed down an entire industry. The Bill, by contrast, simply restricts certain activities. Those who own hounds will still be able to use them for drag hunts, while those who own horses will be able to ride as part of an organised hunt or otherwise. Those who serve such people, such as the blacksmiths who shoe horses or the grooms, will still be required.
Hunt employees are precisely that—employees of individual hunts. It is open to those hunts, if they decide not to go in for drag hunting or some similar activity, to offer their staff appropriate payment Before anyone tells me that hunts do not have resources, I can say that the hon. Member for Gainsborough said in Committee that hunting
is an expensive sport requiring a great deal of commitment and involving large businesses."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 23 January 2001; c. 45.]
I shall make one further point, having been on my feet for long enough. It has been suggested that the absence of provision for compensation renders the Bill incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Our legal advice is that that is not the case. We are not dealing with deprivation of property, but with control of the use of property. There is a requirement in all but exceptional cases to pay compensation for deprivation of property, but there is no such requirement in relation to measures constituting the control of the use of property. We are satisfied that the Bill, without any provision for compensation, is fully in accordance with article 1, protocol 1 of the convention.

Mr. Öpik: The Middle Way Group accepts that the amendment may not be perfectly formulated. We are not hung up on its precise wording. Will the Minister clarify

whether he is saying that, on principle, he and the Government oppose providing compensation for those who lose their livelihoods—indeed, their way of life—and that he does not believe that the circumstances are the same as those surrounding fur farming? If he is saying that, will he make clear why he sees a distinction between fur farming, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), and foxhunting?

Mr. O'Brien: I may not have satisfied the hon. Gentleman, but I have set out the argument. The Government do not believe that it would be right to set the precedent that would be created by accepting the amendments, quite apart from the drafting problems inherent in them. I do not invite the House to accept either amendment, and I hope that hon. Members will see fit to withdraw them.

Mr. Garnier: With the leave of the House, I shall respond briefly to some of the points that were made during the debate, particularly those made by my hon. Friends and the Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not need the leave of the House to make those comments.

Mr. Garnier: Perhaps I acted with an abundance of caution. One never knows where one is nowadays with the new procedures in this place.
The Minister's answer, which was no doubt sincerely meant, demonstrated more than anything the need for a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be present this evening. The hon. Gentleman seemed to get a little lost when he dealt with some of the points that needed to be covered, not least the Government's proposals for the removal of fallen stock under any scheme that they may be preparing. It may well be that the Ministry is having discussions with relevant parties. In the context of new clause 1, it would have been more helpful if we had been told what stage those discussions had reached, and their detail. However, we shall have to do the best we can with the answers that the Minister gave.
In the three and a half hours or so that we have spent discussing two important subjects—the collection of fallen stock and compensation—there were a number of extremely useful contributions, not least that from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke of the leather workers of his west midlands urban constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) spoke of the clearing up of fallen ponies rather than farm animals from the New Forest.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also contributed. Towards the end of the debate, there were particularly trenchant contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who speaks with all the authority not only of someone who is a farmer, but who, I believe, has an interest in the slaughterhouse industry.
We heard a particularly worthwhile contribution from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) who, if I may summarise, said that to advance the Bill without



compensation is just not fair. No reasonable hon. Member could disagree with him. Without either amendment No. 36 or amendment No. 40, the Bill is not fair. No one outside the House would disagree.

Mr. Donald Anderson: rose—

Mr. Garnier: Had the right hon. Gentleman been present for any part of the debate, I might have taken the time to hear what he had to say, but as he has been absent—no doubt for very good reasons—I shall refer to his hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), with whom I always enjoy debating the issue, because he engages in the issues. Whether I agree with him or not does not matter. What is important is that the hon. Gentleman exposed us to his views and allowed us to deal with them in a way that he may not have found helpful.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), as always, contributed his special knowledge as a former Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and as someone who has represented farming constituencies for many years. I was also grateful to hear the views of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who, sadly, has announced that she will not put herself forward for re-election. Even though she may soon no longer be a Member of the House, I hope that she will continue to campaign on behalf of those in her constituency and all who support the views that she and I hold about the need for the preservation of mink hounds and mink hunting.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as always, applied his acute legal mind to a number of issues, including the European convention, and the fact that unless the Bill is amended in the way that we suggest, it will fall outside the convention.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) made what I would loosely describe as a confusing contribution. He began by giving some sort of support to new clause 1 and the need for something to be done about fallen stock; then he got into rather an intellectual muddle about compensation. No doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out, that will give him much sport when he comes to draft his press release.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), as usual, gave a superb performance and demonstrated in a short space of time that this was a grotesque day for the farming world, and that the Bill was a grotesque Bill which did nothing to protect farmers or to advance the interests of the rural economy.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke, and was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who spoke from knowledge of his constituency about the need for compensation for the economic hinterland that exists behind hunting, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who gave a particularly powerful speech, based on his knowledge as a farmer and as one who represents a rural and hunting constituency.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) made an interesting contribution. As someone who wants hunting banned quickly and who complains that the Government

did not introduce a Bill earlier, he said none the less that the issue under discussion this evening was not hunting, but farming. However, even his friends on the Labour Benches were unable to see that.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). Because I was being obtuse, I did not fully understand his point, which was that the Government seem to extol the fallen stock service, through MAFF, but are prepared to introduce through the Home Office a Bill that damages the farming economy. He gave us direct evidence of the valuable work done by the hunt in his constituency and by neighbouring hunts.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garnier: I should love to give way, but the hon. Gentleman must be patient. The debate has been going on for three and a half hours—

Hon. Members: Give way!

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Garnier: I apologise to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I will not give way, as it is time we brought the debate to a conclusion.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Garnier: No, I will not give way; I have explained why.
Following my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire, we had the contribution from the Minister, for whose contribution; we are always grateful. His understanding of new clause 1 seemed to boil down to this: "Something needs to be done. I think MAFF is doing something, but I'm not terribly sure what it is." When the Government find out, no doubt they will be the first to tell us. We know that the Minister for Agriculture does not like coming to the House. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman's boss, the Home Secretary, will be able to elucidate further—or even the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), when she winds up some other debate.
When the Minister dealt with compensation, he seemed to be completely at sea. He said that we must make judgments. Indeed we must. We will make a judgment both at the general a lection, and in the Division Lobbies shortly. He seemed to say that if we banned hunting, we would cause economic loss, but he was not prepared to do anything about it.
The economic loss that will be caused by the Bill and by the banning of hunting is both foreseeable and devastating. We already know that the rural economy is on a knife edge. If the Bill is not amended as we propose, it will drive a nail into the coffin of farming. A Government who fear precedent—the Minister said that he feared creating a precedent—are a Government who fear their own shadow. The shadow of that Government sits on the Conservative Benches, and we are itching to replace the Government. I can assure the House that the Under-Secretary's performance, which was no doubt given with the best will in the world, has done his party


no favours. I trust that when the Division bell sounds, all hon. Members who believe in justice and fairness will follow us through the Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 280.

Division No. 131]
[8.20 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Hayes, John


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heald, Oliver


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Baker, Norman
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Ballard, Jackie
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hoey, Kate


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Bercow, John
Horam, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Body, Sir Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Johnson, Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)



Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Brady, Graham
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brake, Tom
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Brand, Dr Peter
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Letwin, Oliver


Breed, Colin
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lidington, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Livsey, Richard


Burnett, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Burstow, Paul
Llwyd, Elfyn


Cash, William
Loughton, Tim


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Luff, Peter



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Chope, Christopher
McCrea, Dr William


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Collins, Tim
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
McLoughlin, Patrick


Cotter, Brian
Madel, Sir David


Cran, James
Major, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Edwards, Huw
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Evans, Nigel
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa


Fabricant, Michael
Mitchell, Austin


Fallon, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fearn, Ronnie
Nicholls, Patrick


Flight, Howard

Norman, Archie


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Öpik, Lembit


Fraser, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Paice, James


Garnier, Edward
Paisley, Rev Ian


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Paterson, Owen


Gidley, Sandra
Pickles, Eric


Gill, Christopher
Prior, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robathan, Andrew


Gray, James

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Green, Damian
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Greenway, John
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Grieve, Dominic
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Ruffley, David


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
St Aubyn, Nick


Hammond, Philip
Sanders Adrian


Harris, Dr Evan
Sayeed, Jonathan


Harvey, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian





Shepherd, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tyrie, Andrew


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Michael
Webb, Steve


Spring, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Steen, Anthony
Whittingdale, John


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Streeter, Gary
Wilkinson, John


Stunell, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Swayne, Desmond
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)



Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Nicholas Soames and


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Edward Leigh.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clelland, David


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clwyd, Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coaker, Vernon


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Colman, Tony



Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Ashton, Joe
Cooper, Yvette


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corbett, Robin


Austin, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bailey, Adrian
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry
Cox, Tom


Barron, Kevin
Cranston, Ross


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Berry, Roger
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Best, Harold



Blackman, Liz
Dean, Mrs Janet


Blizzard, Bob
Denham, Rt Hon John


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Doran, Frank


Browne, Desmond
Dowd, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Drew, David


Burden, Richard
Drown, Ms Julia


Burgon, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline


Cann, Jamie
Flynn, Paul


Caplin, Ivor
Follett, Barbara


Casale, Roger
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil


Chidgey, David
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Goggins, Paul


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen



Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gunnell, John






Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Merron, Gillian


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hancock, Mike
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hanson, David
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Healey, John
Miller, Andrew


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moffatt, Laura


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hendrick, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Hepburn, Stephen
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Heppell, John



Hill, Keith
Mountford, Kali


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hope, Phil
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pearson, Ian


Humble, Mrs Joan
Perham, Ms Linda


Hutton, John
Plaskitt, James


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pollard, Kerry


Illsley, Eric
Pond, Chris


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pope, Greg


Jamieson, David
Pound, Stephen


Jenkins, Brian
Powell, Sir Raymond


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rapson, Syd


Joyce, Eric
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rendel, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rogers, Allan


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rooney, Terry


Kemp, Fraser
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rowlands, Ted


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Kingham, Ms Tess
Savidge, Malcolm


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sedgemore, Brian


Lammy, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Lepper, David
Sheerman, Barry


Leslie, Christopher
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Levitt, Tom
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Love, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


MacShane, Denis
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mactaggart, Fiona
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McWalter, Tony
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice



Mallaber, Judy
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Timms, Stephen


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Tipping, Paddy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Todd, Mark


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Trickett, Jon


Martlew, Eric
Truswell, Paul


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)





Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Wills, Michael


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wilson, Brian


Twigg, Stephen (Enfieid)
Winnick, David


Tynan, Bill
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Vaz, Keith
Wood, Mike


Walley, Ms Joan
Woolas, Phil


Walley, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Ward, Ms Claire
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Wareing, Robert N
wyatt, Derek


Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Colin Pickthall and



Mr. Stephen Hesford.

Question accordingly negatived.

Schedule

HUNTING WITH DOGS: PROHIBITION

Mr. Lidington: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—

'Hunting which begins in Scotland

.—A person does not commit an offence under paragraph I if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog and his hunting of that mammal began in Scotland.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 77, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—

'Hunting which begins and ends in Scotland

.—(1) Subject to sub -paragraph (3), a person does not commit an offence under paragraph 1 if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog in England only incidentally in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.

(2) A hunt begins in Scotland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins in Scotland.

(3) A hunt ends—

(a) when the wild mammal is killed, or
(b) by a decision, to stop hunting

and no offence is committed under paragraph 1 if the hunt begins in Scotland and the wild mammal is killed in England.

(4) A wild mammal Hay not be dug out or bolted in England in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.

(5) Where sub—paragraph (1) applies, no offence shall be committed under paragraph 2, 3 or 4.'.

Mr. Lidington: This couple of amendments deal with hunts that begin in Scotland. They seek to address the problem that would arise were we to have different laws governing hunting with hounds on the two sides of the Anglo-Scottish border.
Under amendment No. 76, an offence would not be committed if somebody hunted a wild mammal with a dog and that hunt began in Scotland. Under amendment No. 77, we try to approach the problem slightly differently. It is a more restrictive attempt to tackle the problem, and provides that no offence would be committed where a hunt both began and ended in Scotland, but where the pursuit of the fox, which is the mammal that we are talking about in these circumstances, continued over the English border during the course of the chase.
The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for the law on hunting north of the border. Recent reports of its deliberations show that if a new law is introduced in Edinburgh it is likely to differ significantly from the complete ban proposed in the Bill now before the House of Commons, which raises some practical difficulties.
Currently, eight packs of foxhounds hunt in areas either adjacent to or over the border between England and Scotland. The remote upland terrain in those areas is precisely the type of land over which, as Lord Burns concluded, lamping would be an impractical method of fox control. That region contains Hadrian's wall, which is a major tourist attraction popular with walkers, so the safety of humans would be at issue if farmers and landowners had to resort to lampin or other forms of shooting as an alternative method of fox control to hunting.
The border is not fenced and it is not marked out along fields and moorlands. If people in Scotland lawfully take part in a hunt after a ban has come into force in England and Wales, how are they to know when they are moving from one jurisdiction to another? A number of detailed, practical questions are raised as one explores the difficulties that would be faced were different laws on hunting to be in operation in England and in Scotland.
If a hunt started in Scotland but the dogs crossed the border into England, would an offence be committed? It has been made clear to us during our deliberations in Standing Committee that the act of hunting that is to form the criminal offence under paragraph 1 of the schedule does not have to involve the killing of a mammal. The pursuit of a mammal by hounds would be sufficient to bring that activity within the ambit of the Bill and make it a criminal offence as defined in paragraph 1. What would happen if a hunt started legally on one side of the border and moved into England? Would a criminal ffence be committed or not?
Would an offence be committed if the people carrying out the hunting remained in Scotland but at any time during the chase the dogs crossed the border into England? That could be particularly complicated if a group of people were out hunting lawfully in Scotland and some of them followed the dogs across the border into England while others stayed behind in Scotland. All would be taking part in the same hunt, but would some of them be subject to criminal penalties under the Bill and others not?
The purpose of the amendments is to allow us to debate these issues, which will be of great importance to, admittedly, a small number of people in border areas. They suggest a way in which the House and the Government could deal with some of the problems that may arise.

Mr. Hogg: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if the House does not accept the amendment, we will be derogating the authority of the Scottish Parliament? In reality, unless we accept the amendment, those who support the Scottish hounds will not be able to hunt close to the border. That will diminish the freedoms of Scots, which should, under devolution, be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Lidington: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. Without the amendments,

the potential for conflict will be inherent in the Bill, because there will be different criminal regimes on either side of the border.
How will the offences relating to the use of land for hunting be affected by the border situation? Some properties span the border. If the Bill becomes law, a landowner who gives permission for hunting on his property in England will be committing a criminal offence.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The matter goes further than that. Along the Tweed, in so far as hounds might go into the river, the border is not fixed. The stream of the Tweed fluctuates, so one might find oneself on an island in that river. One might also discover that the boundary has shifted from one side of that island to the other. I encountered that fact as a barrister while litigating in respect of fishing rights on the Tweed. Although the boundary was fixed by a joint commission in the 1840s, changes in the course of the Tweed meant that an island that had previously been assumed to lie wholly in Scotland was found to lie partly in Scotland and partly in England.

Mr. Lidington: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because his intervention shows that we are not discussing some abstract possibility. He refers to a legal case that arose from a dispute over where the border lay in respect of islands in the River Tweed. Given the experience that he relates, and given the fact that Members on both sides of the argument in the Standing Committee accepted that, should the Bill become law, there would be a risk of malicious information being laid against people in an attempt to convict them of criminal offences, we are right to devote time to debating the matter, not least because we had fewer than 15 minutes in Committee to discuss the question of the Anglo-Scottish border before the guillotine fell, cutting off further debate.
On the question of the border between England and Scotland, a landowner in Northumberland who gave permission to hunt across his property would be subject to the criminal offence in paragraph 2, but let us consider the position of a landowner with land spanning the border who acceded to the request of a hunt lawful in Scotland to hunt foxes with hounds across his land, only to discover that, during the lawful hunt on his Scottish property, those taking part or the hounds had strayed, either deliberately or by accident, on to his English property.
Would that landowner have committed an offence in such circumstances? What evidence would he have to present to the prosecuting authorities in England to show that he had made it clear to those taking part in the hunt that they were allowed to cross only his land in Scotland, not that south of the border? Would any duty fall on him to mark out the border across his property so that he could be assured that he was fulfilling his duty under the law and could therefore show that he had not committed a criminal offence?

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point that is worth listening to, but what would happen if a stag hunted from England crossed the border into Scotland, where it is unlawful to hunt deer? That is a real situation that could arise now.

Mr. Lidington: I think the hon. Gentleman is grabbing at a red herring. I understand that there is no organised stag hunting in Northumberland or Cumberland, which means that the question he raises would not arise. In any event, it is a question for Ministers to answer on behalf of the Government, because it flows from devolution. In the new constitutional circumstances, the House must be careful about addressing issues that will be affected by the existence of what are clearly different jurisdictions.

Mr. Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman bases his argument on foxhunting, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) implies, the Bill is about hunting wild mammals, and deer fall into that category. As the hunting of deer with hounds in Scotland has been banned since 1959, it is widely assumed that the law in Scotland may be different from that in England.

Mr. Lidington: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to assume that organised hunting of deer with hounds takes place anywhere in the border regions.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: I can confirm that no hunting of deer with hounds takes place in any of the border counties. It does not take place in Northumberland or Cumberland; it happens only in the south-west of England.

Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I have based my remarks on foxhunting because it presents us, as a legislature, with a real issue. Foxhunting with hounds takes place in the border regions of both Scotland and England, and across the border. The practical issue that the House and the Government must address is, I submit, different from the theoretical speculations of the hon. Members for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Atkinson: I should point out that one pack in my constituency, the Border Foxhounds, has hunting country on both sides of the border. Other packs hunt on one side but may cross; this pack crosses the border regularly, as a matter of course.

Mr. Lidington: That reinforces my point.
How would the ban be enforced in practice, in terms of the border between England and Scotland? If that border is not clearly marked along its length, people travelling in upland country will not be sure when they have moved from England into Scotland or vice versa. One can conjure up odd visions of police constables being deputed to stomp around farmland and moorland in galoshes and plastic macs, spreading out from path to path to make sure that the boundary was policed. I am prepared to accept that that is not the Government's intention, and I am sure that it is not the intention of any chief constable on either side of the border; but if there is one criminal law in England and another in Scotland, people will go to the police and allege that this or that group of individuals intends to hunt illegally in England from a starting point in Scotland. What are the police supposed to do in such circumstances?
My amendment would introduce clarity into an area of the law that would otherwise be confused and ambiguous. Moreover, it has the great merit of enabling people on

both sides of the border between England and Scotland to know exactly where they stand and what the law requires them to do, or to desist from doing.

Mr. Beith: Mine is one of three constituencies directly affected by the subject matter of the amendment, the other two being Hexham and Penrith and The Border. Those constituencies are in England, are therefore affected by the Bill and border Scotland. In each case, there are substantial hunting activities on both sides of the border.
Appreciation of where the border lies is not widespread. This evening, talking to one of my hon. Friends, I was shocked to discover that he used the expression, "north of Hadrian's wall" in the mistaken belief that all that lay north of the wall was in Scotland. Admittedly, he was from the south coast, but it showed a distinct lack of appreciation. I do not think that many people appreciate that, for example, in parts of the area that we are discussing, it is possible to travel due north from Scotland to England, or due south from England to Scotland. The border follows a complicated line, which in most areas is not marked.
In some of the Cheviot areas, along the border, there is a two-strand wire fence that any small animal would have no difficulty in getting through. In much of the border country, there is no marking at all. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has pointed out from his legal experience, there have been cases about islands in the Tweed. The border in the Tweed is a shifting border, or at least the land shifts. The border may stay in the same place, but the land shifts and that makes it difficult to define it, so we have a practical problem.
Eight packs of foxhounds hunt adjacent to and across the border: the Bewcastle, the North Tyne, the Border, the North Northumberland and College Valley, the Berwickshire, the Jed Forest, the Buccleuch and the Liddesdale. The West Percy in my constituency comes very close to the border and, I suspect, will face the same problem.
Many of those hunts regularly cross the border. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said that Border Foxhounds hunts in country that crosses the border and therefore, as a matter of course, operates on both sides of the border. The same is true of the North Northumberland and College Valley hunt, which is kennelled in my constituency, but has country on both sides of the border, which is not clearly marked.
There is, therefore, a practical problem. Although the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) was right to point out that, for many years, there have been differences in the law between England and Scotland, the one that he cited has no practical effect because there is no stag hunting in the border areas of England. For that matter, I do not think that there was much in the border areas of Scotland before it was banned; it was mainly a highland activity. The deer legislation is drafted in such a way that, unlike this legislation, it does not ban deer stalking. There is deer stalking in forest areas in the borders. Dogs may be used to assist in the locating of deer prior to their being shot. That matter is intended to be dealt with by a later amendment.
I was slightly concerned when the Minister indicated two things that I had not realised. The first was that it had been his intention all along to ban deer stalking, but that he had now changed his mind. The second was that that


was only his view, that it was entirely a matter for the House and that there was no Government view on whether the Bill should ban deer stalking, but we will come to that later.
There is a practical problem in relation to foxhunting. There is a practical problem for a further reason, which is emphasised in the Burns report: the nature of the country in the Cheviot and other areas. Few areas in England are more wild than the Cheviot summits or the area north of Spadeadam Waste in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hexham. Fox control in those areas is very difficult and lamping is unsuitable. That is made clear in the Burns report. There was a pretty heavy steer in the report towards tolerating some sort of hunting of foxes with hounds in those upland areas. We have passed the point where the Government would have accepted that, but what they must recognise is that, in country on both sides of the border, dogs have to be used to locate foxes and, indeed, to deal with other pests.
That brings me to wider issues of pest control. Although we have looked at the matter primarily in relation to foxhunting itself and the difficulty faced by the hunts, gamekeepers, countryside wardens and others involved in pest control who operate on the border will face the problem of the difference in the law. It seems inconceivable that legislation will be passed by the Scottish Parliament that does what the Hunting Bill does—which is to insist that if a rabbit is flushed out, it is immediately shot with a gun. I cannot imagine that the Scottish Parliament will pass such legislation. I also think that it is now unlikely that there will be a total ban on hunting in Scotland. It is a matter of speculation, and hon. Members cannot assume that there will be comparable legislation in Scotland.
Therefore, if a gamekeeper with a dog is dealing with rabbits and reaches the border, although there was not necessarily a requirement for him to carry a gun or to use it on his side of the border, the moment the dog chases the rabbit into England the gamekeeper will have to shoot at the rabbit. It is not sensible to put that gamekeeper in such a situation.
The legislation would have a similar effect in relation to the celebrated topic of rats in cellars, on which we shall vote later. If a dog goes underground in pursuit of a rat and crosses the border—which is perfectly easy to do along the banks of the Tweed, for example, or in any other rough country—the situation would immediately change. The dog would have to be called off, or the gamekeeper would have to prove that he did not have any intent that the dog should cross the border.
Much will turn on the defence that can be used in court. In many cases, it could be difficult if the prosecution insists that, as the gamekeeper was so near the border, he must have known that there was a risk of the dog crossing it. Unfortunately, however, once a gamekeeper is employed in a particular place, he has to deal with the rodents and rabbits in that place. Consequently, his work may be along the border. In such circumstances, there is no way in which he can simply exclude the possibility of his dog crossing the border.

Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore agree that, in reality, unless we accept the amendment, the Bill's effect would be to prevent the gamekeeper or anyone else engaged in country sports from practicing

them close to the border, for fear that they would contravene the criminal law in England? Is that not to derogate from the rights of Scots?

Mr. Beith: A solicitor might advise the gamekeeper's employer that it was unsafe to allow his gamekeeper to work in the usual way, close to the border area. I put it no stronger than that. It is similar to the situation in relation to many issues. Nowadays, employers have to take legal advice or they take risks. A solicitor might advise that it is unwise to allow such work as one might be unable to sustain a defence in court. That in itself is a limitation of British democracy.
I do not, however, entirely follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in making a constitutional issue of that, as it seems that there will inevitably be some differences on either side of the border. The job of this place when passing legislation is to consider the practical implications and decide whether the law goes too far in creating practical difficulties with far-reaching consequences for people on the other side of the border. Therefore, although the point is a genuine one, I do not believe that it is constitutionally improper for the Government to legislate differently for our side of the border. We just have to consider the practical consequences.
I contend that, if we do not have some provision along the lines of that suggested by amendment No. 76, the practical consequences could be difficult. If the Bill is passed without the amendment, it would extend across the border difficulties that gamekeepers will have in England. The Bill would affect gamekeepers on the other side of the border who could otherwise perform their work in their traditional way, and might expose them to legal challenge.
I therefore agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention, but with a slight modification. I say that we would be creating an unfair and unreasonable practical difficulty if we did not adjust the legislation to meet that particular case. Although that is not the biggest issue raised for those categories of people by the legislation, it is a real practical issue.
If I were a member of the North Northumberland and College Valley hunt, I would want to retain if I possibly could the hunt's rights in its own country, on the Scottish side of the border, to continue hunting. However, the kennels are in England. As there is now so little country to hunt, the hunt can hunt only one day a fortnight rather than a couple of days a week. Nevertheless, each time we hunt, we take the pack and the horses over on to the Scottish side—south into Scotland. Does that show an intent to hunt in England? I am not a hunting person, but I am putting myself in the mind of people who are. Proving one's innocence in court will be difficult, and so genuine rights are put at risk. Any cautious solicitor will tell people not to risk any such action, as a successful prosecution could ensue. It is therefore worth pursuing a proposal along the lines of the amendment, and I hope that Ministers will be sympathetic, as they have been to some of my other suggestions.

9 pm

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I rise to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said in moving the amendment, and I also agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
I speak tonight not as the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, but as the son of a borderer, and the grandson of a Scottish border farmer. My family was one of those that did so much to create that beautiful border countryside that lies just north of the Carter bar and runs up to Edinburgh. They will clearly be affected if the ban were to be implemented by the Scottish Parliament, and the problems will be worse if the amendment, or one like it, is not accepted by the Government.
I spoke tonight to my uncle, Charlie Douglas, a former master of the Jed Forest hunt. He tells me that the hunt often crosses the border. However, it is not always possible to delineate where that lies, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made clear and as I may have told the House before.
When the Ministry of Defence was seeking to establish precisely where the border ran over the Cheviot hills, officials had to call on another of my uncles. The Otterburn range extends right to that point, and my uncle, Garry Douglas, a tenant farmer on the Roxburgh estates, was responsible for farming the land right up on the border. That was sometime in the 1950s. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to a two-stranded wire fence, and that it is probably the only delineation of the location of the border.
There is therefore a real problem in defining the point at which people who are legitimately engaged in the lawful pursuit of hunting in Scotland become criminals in England. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, there are eight hunts in the area. Four are on the Scottish side. They meet regularly, very close to the border.
Why should people who hunt there have to change tens or hundreds of years of practice and move away from their traditional hunting grounds to go and hunt where they can be sure that they will not run the risk of becoming criminals in England? That could happen if their hounds chase after a fox which, not being clear of the geography and not having global positioning system equipment to guide it, runs off into England.
Unless the amendment is accepted, the Bill will restrict the rights of people in Scotland to pursue their lawful activity without incurring the risk of prosecution. The Bill will require them to rearrange their hunting so that there is no conceivable risk of straying anywhere over the border. That is an important consideration. Hunting is a very popular sport in that part of the world, which fits Lord Burns' description of those remote areas where hunting is so much part of the glue and fabric of rural and agricultural society. The Bill threatens that activity.
Hunting provides support for the local economy. It not only provides support for those who supply saddlery and farrier services but attracts foreign tourists who bring their foreign currency into the border area. That is also a help.
There is a real risk that we are in danger of legislating to make criminals of people who are perfectly entitled to pursue their lawful activity north of the border. I am astonished that the Government have not already addressed the issue. As I recall, on previous Bills brought before the House, such points have been specifically addressed.

Mr. Hogg: May I remind my hon. Friend that when we considered the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member

for Worcester (Mr. Foster), we dealt with the position in Northern Ireland and the problem that arose with regard to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The Government owe us an explanation as to why they have no, recognised this difficulty, given that it has already been drawn to their attention on previous occasions. As with so much else that the Government do, they really do not care. They certainly do not care about the countryside. They will simply ram the legislation through. I expect that they will vote against the amendment, quite oblivious to the very real risks that would be run by those engaged in lawful hunting in Scotland if their hounds or the fox strayed across the border.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, will not tell us that we are talking about something theoretical that is unlikely to happen. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady indicates that she will not say that. That is encouraging.
Lest anyone believes that the police officers will not be interested in pursuing these matters to ensure that no criminal activity takes place, I have to say that plenty of hunt saboteurs will congregate in that part of the world. All the hunt saboteurs who will be out of a job in England and Wales if this illiberal and obscene measure goes through will gravitate up to Scotland to disrupt the lawful hunting that takes place there.
We all know how these people work. They will go out in droves to watch the hunting. They will presumably mark out the border or have extraordinarily detailed maps of where they think the border is. They will monitor the hunting that takes place, report to the police anybody who strays across the border and demand that the police prosecute. So the police will have that pressure placed on them. We know that they are unhappy with the measure in its totality in any case.
People in Scotland will find it extremely disturbing to have imported all these ghastly hunt saboteurs. I have never understood how people who call themselves hunt saboteurs could do other than fall foul of the law, for sabotage, I thought, was an unlawful activity in this country.
If I were the chief constable of the Lothian and Borders police force, I would be extremely concerned about all those people coming across the border if the Bill goes through. They would cause mayhem for the police, seeking, in particular, to find those who were hunting while straying across the border.
I feel very strongly about the personal dimension. I do not see why members of my family who fought for the freedom of these islands should be subjected to this outrageous attempt to criminalise them. If they pursue their perfectly legitimate activity in Scotland, they run the risk of being criminalised because of straying inadvertently across the border. My uncles did not fight in the second world war so that such a gross intrusion into their freedom could take place—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head. I can tell her that some of us do not just recite the briefings; some of us feel strongly about the matter—[interruption.] It is not the Minister's position to tell me sit down. We feel strongly about this important issue. The Minister has had time to address


it, but she and her Government have constantly failed to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friends on tabling the amendment, which I shall support.

Mr. Hogg: I shall be brief. I support the amendments proposed by my hon. Friends. Of the two, amendment No. 77 is to be preferred but I shall accept amendment No. 76 if the Question is put on it.
The points are simple. Foxes do not respect frontiers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has demonstrated from his family experience, foxes cross the boundary between England and Scotland—a fact that comes as no surprise to anyone who knows about foxhunting or any country activity.
Whatever the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) says, the plain truth is that we are diminishing the freedoms of Scots. No Scots hunt could sensibly hunt close to the border where it might cross the boundary. That is also true of gamekeepers—the example cited by the right hon. Gentleman—or of people who are using hounds or dogs for rabbiting. Such people will cross the border. Having done so in the course of hunting, people who started a lawful activity at 10 o'clock in the morning will suddenly find that they are engaged in unlawful activity at 11 o'clock. The only sensible conclusion that they could come to would be that they must withdraw from the frontier, so that there is no risk of crossing it. At that point, we are derogating from the freedoms of people in the United Kingdom—for no good reason.
For that reason, the Government ought to accept the amendment. They are in no position to say that they did not know about the matter or have had no opportunity to think about it. As I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, that prec ise difficulty was identified during proceedings on the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), when we drew attention to such problems in relation to the border between the Province of Ulster and the Republic of Ireland.
Difficult definitional questions will arise if we do not accept the amendment. Let us assume that the gamekeeper, referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, or my Scots hunt cross the border and that the person in charge of eithr the gamekeeper's dog or the hounds wants to recover the straying animals. At what point in that process of recovery does the huntsman or the gamekeeper cease to be a person hunting and become a person recovering the dog or the hound? Presumably, one has to address that principal motive. That person began by hunting and then crossed the border. Was he still hunting or was he trying to recover his hounds? That is a difficult question.
We do not want to encourage prosecution. We do not want to diminish the freedoms of Scotsmen. The only sensible course is to accept a provision such as amendment No. 76 or amendment No. 77. If the Government say that those provisions are not well formulated and that we should reconsider them, my response is that they have access to parliamentary counsel so that is the course they should adopt.

Mr. Beith: There is not much difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and me on this issue. We are talking of the freedom not only of Scotsmen,

but that of any person—Scots or English—who chooses to exercise his right to behave lawfully on the Scottish side of the border. It would be lawful for an Englishman living in England to offer to do some rabbit clearance for someone on the Scottish side of the border.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We are creating a trap for our fellow citizens, but it is not one without cure. We could remedy the matter by accepting an amendment along the lines of those proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington).

Mr. Grieve: I am aware that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will know more about such matters than me, but my recollection—from staying with friends who live close to the border—is that several farms straddle the border. The gamekeeper would thus be both a Scottish and an English gamekeeper.

Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is quite right.
I should like to make a final point about fox sanctuaries. If foxes can be lawfully hunted one side of the border, but not on the other, they will congregate in England. That will not be terribly popular with English farmers close to the border, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) will tell us. In fact, the farmers will then shoot foxes with a will, and there will be a butchery of foxes, which is not manifestly in the interests of the fox population.
The Minister has got herself into a pickle, but she has no possible excuse for that. She should accept the amendment; if she does not, she should table another one, and if she does not say that she will do so, we will vote against her.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: This is a wonderfully esoteric issue. Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 address a problem that has existed for many hundreds of years, although the dispute over the border between England and Scotland has entailed a lot bloody history and loss of life over many years and I do not think that even the amendments could end that tide of history.
If I had known that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was related to the Douglases, I would not have been so kind to him during my time in Parliament. My mother's side of the family is descended from another border family with whom the Douglases were in something of a state of enmity. They were an interesting family because they lived on both sides of the border and made a steady living during the middle ages by joining the Scots when they raided and pillaged England, and joining the English when they raided Scotland. They did very well until the forebears of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) hanged them all at a place called Kershopefoot just after 1620.
The serious matter is that, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has said, the border is simply not defined. It is extremely difficult to know where the border lies amid the moorlands and forests that cross it. Indeed, the borderline has never been fixed. There is an approximate line on a map, but that is it. A fence, which still more or less exists, was put up before the war to define landowning interests, but in practice the border is not defined. In fact, a large chunk of the border was


historically known as the debatable land, because it was never agreed. It was only after the union of the Crowns that an attempt was made to define the border exactly.
The old border law of hot trod allows people on one side of the border to pursue a criminal on the other side. It is only, I think, in the past five years that the problem of Scottish police officers operating in England and English police officers operating in Scotland has been solved. I understand that a Scottish police officer called to help the Northumbrian police in Berwick-upon-Tweed had no right as a constable until only a few years ago, when that legal anomaly was put right. There is a vast amount of historical confusion about the location of the border.
There are predominantly two hunts in my constituency. The Border Foxhounds, which I mentioned in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), has defined country on both sides of the border, so it regularly hunts across it. Other hunts will cross the border during their daily activities. It would be absolutely nonsensical if it were only legal to take a fox on the Scottish side when a pack of hounds hunting near the border split, as sometimes happens: if another fox appears, one half of the pack may go after that fox while the other half goes after the original fox. No huntsman wants his or her pack to split, but it happens from time to time. In such cases, it is not the intention but the inevitable consequence to hunt on both sides of the border.
As I understand it, the proposals of the Scottish Parliament represent a move to a compromise and the licensing of hunts. The Border Foxhounds and other hunts would no doubt be licensed to perform their duties on the Scottish side of the border, but not on the English side. Where landholdings cross the border, that would make fox control extremely difficult.
Incidentally, the Border Foxhounds hunts over the Otterburn military training range, which runs up to the border. The tenant farmers on the range have allowed the hunt to be their method of fox control. All the tenant farmers have a duty to control the foxes on their land and, as they have far better things to do than spend their time trying to hunt foxes, they leave the job to the Border Foxhounds, which is thoroughly efficient at controlling foxes in that area. We have debated the tamping of foxes, but one could not do that on the Otterburn training range. The Army runs night exercises there and people crawling round with high-powered lamps and rifles would not be conducive to the safety of the soldiers taking part in those exercises. The current proposals will create difficulties for the hunts that operate on the border.
Although I am not a lawyer, I am surrounded by lawyers and that gives me some comfort. The Bill does not appear to resolve the question of intent. One may start to hunt on the Scottish side of the border and have no intention of hunting on the English side, but it is quite easy to cross the border without intending to do so.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed also asked what would happen if the hounds were kennelled on the English side of the border, but were allowed to hunt only on the Scottish side. If they crossed the border during a hunt, would the fact that the kennels were on the English side where hunting was outlawed have an effect on the issue of intent? That is an interesting point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot mentioned the importance of hunting as a social activity in the borders. It is an extremely remote part of the United Kingdom and people in the borders often live many miles from the nearest supermarket or entertainment facilities that are normally found in cities. The hunts play a key role in the social lift of the countryside. They run dances and their social activities are well patronised by many people even if they do not hunt themselves. Any attack on hunting will constitute an attack on an important part of social life in those areas.
The whole Bill is illiberal and disgraceful. If we are to make some sense of the nonsense in the Bill, I urge the Government to accept amendments Nos. 76 and 77.

Mr. Grieve: I am familiar with the area in question from my cousins who live in those parts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has touched on the issue that I wish to discuss, which relates to our responsibility for the Scots and their activities. I think that the issue goes a little further than has been suggested so far, and merits some consideration.
In the proceeding; on the Scotland Act 1998, the point was frequently made that, although that measure altered the Act of Union by introducing a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh, the Act of Union and the intentions that underlay it survived in respect of those issues that were not touched by the 1998 Act. I clearly recollect from my study of history that one of the primary benefits that sold the Act of Union was the removal of the border as an impediment to movement. It may not have impeded reivers such as my ancestors in Roxburghshire—and we have heard something about those activities—because they were unlawful visitors. However, the miracle of the union of the two Crowns in the early 17th century was that an area that had been lawless was rendered lawful in a short time, and started to prosper agriculturally. The point has often been made that, although two different legal systems operate on either side of the border, the border has become one area for the purposes of inter-marriage and the movement of people across it. Indeed, the border is unmarked in most places and is, in practical terms, completely irrelevant.
It is right that we have a Scottish Parliament that passes laws for its part of the United Kingdom, but it has not passed any laws to ban foxhunting, which remains a lawful activity there. From my visits to Edinburgh as Conservative spokesman for Scotland, it is clear to me that Lord Watson's Bill may never reach the statute book, so hunting may never be banned in Scotland.
Although we respect—as the Government say they do—the intent behind the creation of the United Kingdom through the conjunction of the two realms, it is astonishing that we should decide in legislation involving England, which we are entitled to make, that no exception will be made for people in Scotland who unintentionally and inevitably cross the border while going about their lawful business. The Minister will probably say that nothing can be done about that, but it is a matter that is simple to address. In the context of the Government's stated policy on devolution and the preservation of the Union, it is bizarre that they cannot create an exception that enables traditional pursuits to take place in Scotland, even if they lap over the border. That would not cause frightful difficulties.


I hope that the Minister will surprise us all and announce that the Government are pre pared to think about this issue. Their approach illustrates the petty-mindedness that has underlain everything to do with the Bill's passage through Parliament. The bigotry that has been exhibited has been woeful. I hope that we can achieve some common sense. It is possible to get this wretched Bill on the statute book and, at the same time, to provide a reasonable and common-sense exemption for traditional activities north of the border that respects the fact that the border is no more than a line on a map. That would not take us closer to putting up barbed-wire fences.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The amendments presuppose that hunting is banned in England but remains legal in Scotland. Amendment No. 76 would allow a hunt that began in Scotland to continue in England without an offence being committed. Amendment No. 77 defines when hunting would begin and end.
I am aware that the Scottish Parliament is considering a Bill on hunting with dogs. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) ana for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) speculated on what it might permit and on its fate. I do not want to predict the outcome of the Scottish Parliament's deliberations. The future of hunting with dogs in Scotland should be left to the Scottish Parliament to decide.
The amendments would allow a hunt that began in Scotland to continue into England without breaching the law that bans hunting with dogs in England and Wales. That cannot be right. The Bill's provisions extend to all of England and all of Wales. There is no reason why a person, because he commenced an activity in another country—in this case, Scotland—should be exempted from the intention of the House to ban hunting in England and Wales.
9.30 pm
If we took such a course, we should be creating a tremendous loophole which hunts in the border areas would be quick to exploit. They would ensure that they began their hunting on the Scottish side of the border, and would be able to hunt in England with impunity. Hunts that have hunt kennels located near to the border, such as those in the constituencies of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), will be required to carry out their activities in Scotland, if Scottish legislation permits, in such a way to ensure that they do not inadvertently cross the border and hunt in England.
I am sorry to disappoint Opposition Members, but I cannot accept their arguments. The situation is far from unprecedented. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said—the hon. Member for Aylesbury referred to the matter in his opening comments—that already there is a different legal regime operating in respect of animals on different sides of the border. There is legislation prohibiting the use of dogs to take and kill deer in any circumstances in Scotland, but we know that the activity is still legal in England and Wales.
Opposition Members argue that that is not a relevant example. However, that is a matter of opinion. I believe that it is a pertinent example. The right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed talked about gamekeepers chasing

rabbits and rodents and argued that they would have particular problems in border areas. Several hon. Members asked where the border is drawn. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, we would shortly, if time permitted, be coming to amendments which would have the effect of allowing both unrestricted rodent hunting and unrestricted rabbit hunting. If the House decides to agree to those amendments, as I hope it will, the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raised about gamekeepers will not arise.
It has been suggested that if hunting were legal on one side of the England-Scotland border but illegal on the other, there would be problems for the police as they tried to enforce the law. The members of the Committee and Members who have read the Official Report of our proceedings—I am sure that many have done so, but those who have not should read especially the proceedings of the final day, which I think they will find entertaining—will know that cross-border policing was referred to in Committee, under what is now clause 4, which relates to the extent of the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained in a letter that he sent to members of the Committee that cross-border policing is dealt with in part X of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act provides that the English police may execute warrants issued in England in Scotland, and vice versa. The Act also gives English police powers of arrest in Scotland in respect of offences committed in England provided that certain conditions are met—and, again, vice versa.
These powers apply to all relevant offences, and hunting with dogs will not be treated any differently. The police will be able to use the powers across the border irrespective of whether the conduct in question would constitute an offence had it occurred on that side of the border. There will be no problems for the police if different regimes apply on the two sides of the English-Scottish border.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Jane Kennedy: I know that I shall regret doing so, but I give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: Let us take a Scots hunt that is hunting foxes. It crosses the border and the huntsman is aware that he has crossed the border. The hounds are chasing foxes in England. However, the huntsman wants to recall the hounds and take them back to Scotland. At what point does the huntsman cease to be a person hunting?

Jane Kennedy: I have already said that it is the responsibility of those undertaking hunting to ensure that their conduct does not become an offence. I do not think that that is difficult for the House to understand. I reiterate that there will be no problem for the police if different regimes apply on the two sides of the English-Scottish border.
The amendments have no basis in logic and would simply create a large loophole. If it is the will of the Westminster Parliament that an activity should not be permissible in England and Wales, that must be so. The fact that the activity began in another jurisdiction should not cut across this Parliament's wishes.

Mr. Grieve: I do not understand the Minister's final piece of reasoning. It can be the will of this Parliament to


do what it likes. If this Parliament willed that hunting should be banned in England and Wales, but that, because of the problem of hunting on the border, there should be an exemption for Scottish hunts that crossed the border, there would be nothing abnormal or odd about it. Will the Minister reconcile those two concepts? I do not follow her argument.

Jane Kennedy: The amendments were tabled by Members who oppose the decision that the House took to support the third option. In my opinion, they are intended simply to provide a loophole that would allow individuals to continue foxhunting with hounds by beginning in Scotland and bringing the hunt into England. We should not accept an amendment that would cut across the wishes of this Parliament and 1 invite the hon. Member for Aylesbury to withdraw it.

Mr. Lidington: I am disappointed by the Minister's response. I should have understood it if she had said that amendment No. 76 gave too wide an exemption to the general prohibition defined in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the schedule. I do not understand, however, why she is not prepared to accept amendment No. 77, which provides a more limited and tightly defined exception, or willing to offer an alternative Government amendment if she believes ours to be technically defective.
I find it depressing that the Minister did not even pretend to address the range of detailed and practical issues raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We received no answer to the issue of how people were expected to take decisions that the Minister expects them to take in order to keep within the law if they had no idea where the border lay. We received no answer to the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about the point at which someone would cease to be a participant in the hunt and became in law a person who was seeking to recall the hunt in order to comply with the law.
There were no answers to questions about the position of a landowner who gives permission to a Scottish hunt to hunt across his Scottish territories or about what he would have to do to ensure that he was protected if, deliberately or inadvertently, the hunt crossed to his properties on the English side of the border.
I had hoped to be able to seek leave to withdraw the amendments. I remain prepared to withdraw amendment No. 76, if I may press for a Division on the more tightly defined amendment No. 77, which would defeat the Minister's argument that passing the amendment would blow a massive hole in the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order for the hon. Gentleman to do so. With the leave of the House, he can seek to withdraw amendment No. 76, and he can then move amendment No. 77 formally.

Mr. Lidington: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 77, in page 3, line 2, at end insert—

'Hunting which begins and ends in Scotland

—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), a person does not commit an offence under paragraph 1 if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog in England only incidentally in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.

(2) A hunt begins in Scotland if the pursuit of the wild mammal begins in Scotland.

(3) A hunt ends—

(a) when the will mammal is killed, or
(b) by a decision to stop hunting

and no offence is committed under paragraph 1 if the hunt begins in Scotland and the wild mammal is killed in England.

(4) A wild mammal may not be dug out or bolted in England in the course of a hunt which begins and ends in Scotland.

(5) Where sub—paragraph (1) applies, no offence shall be committed under paragraph 2, 3 or 4;—[Mr. Lidington.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 135, Noes 312.

Division No. 132]
[9.40 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hammond, Philip


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Harris, Dr Evan


Bercow, John
Harvey, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hawkins, Nick



Blunt, Crispin
Hayes, John


Body, Sir Richard
Heald, Oliver


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Hoey, Kate


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Brand, Dr Peter
Horam, John


Brazier, Julian
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Breed, Colin
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Browning, Mrs Angela



Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kin g, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Cash, William
Leigh, Edward


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Letwin, Oliver



Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chope, Christopher
Lidington, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter



Livsey, Richard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Collins, Tim
LIwyd, Elfyn


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Loughton, Tim


Cotter, Brian
Luff, Peter


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
McCrea, Dr William


Duncan, Alan
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Nigel
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Madel, Sir David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Major, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Maples, John


Fraser, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Golding, Mrs Llin
May, Mrs Theresa


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Moore, Michael


Gray, James
Moss, Malcolm


Green, Damian
Nicholls, Patrick



Greenway, John
Oaten, Mark






Öpik, Lembit
Steen, Anthony


Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Paice, James
Swayne, Desmond


Paisley, Rev Ian
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paterson, Owen
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Pickles, Eric
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Prior, David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Townend, John


Robathan, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Tyrie, Andrew


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Viggers, Peter


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Wells, Bowen


Ruffley, David
Whitney, Sir Raymond


St Aubyn, Nick
Whrttingdale, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Richard
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Soames, Nicholas



Spicer, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spring, Richard
Mr. Dominic Grieve and


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Gerald Howarth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Caton, Martin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cawsey, Ian


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chaytor, David


Allan, Richard
Chidgey, David


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)



Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)



Ashton, Joe
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Austin, John
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Bailey, Adrian
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ballard, Jackie
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barren, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cooper, Yvette


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Fobin


Berry, Roger
Corston, Jean


Best, Harold
Cousins, Jim


Betts, Clive
Cox, Tom


Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Borrow, David
Cummings, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davidson Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Browne, Desmond
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Buck, Ms Karen



Burden. Richard
Dean, Mrs. Janet


Burgon, Colin
Denham, Rt Hon John


Burstow, Paul
Dismore, Andrew


Butler, Mrs Christine
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Drew, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drown, Ms Julia


Caplin, Ivor
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Casale, Roger
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)





Edwards, Huw

Kilfoyle, Peter


Efford, Clive
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Etherington, Bill
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Feam, Ronnie
Kingham, Ms Tess


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Lammy, David


Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David


Follett, Barbara
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Levitt, Tom


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Lock, David


Gerrard, Neil
Love, Andrew


Gidley, Sandra
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Godsiff, Roger
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Goggins, Paul



Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McIsaac, Shona


Grocott, Bruce
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McNamara, Kevin


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
MacShane, Denis


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hancock, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Hanson, David
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hendrick, Mark
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, Keith
Meale, Alan


Hinchliffe, David
Merron, Gillian


Hood, Jimmy
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hope, Phil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Miller, Andrew


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mitchell, Austin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Moffatt, Laura


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hurst, Alan
Morley, Elliot


Hutton, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Iddon, Dr Brian



Illsley, Eric
Mountford, Kali


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jamieson, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pollard, Kerry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pound, Stephen


Joyce, Eric
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Purchase, Ken


Kemp, Fraser
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick






Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rendel, David
Timms, Stephen


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Tipping, Paddy


Rogers, Allan
Todd, Mark


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Rooney, Terry
Trickett, Jon


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Truswell, Paul


Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Roy, Frank
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Ruane, Chris
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruddock, Joan
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sanders, Adrian
Tynan, Bill


Sarwar, Mohammad
Vaz, Keith


Savidge, Malcolm
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sedgemore, Brian
Walley, Ms Joan


Shaw, Jonathan
Ward, Ms Claire


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wareing, Robert N


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Webb, Steve


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wicks, Malcolm


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wilson, Brian


Spellar, John
Winnick, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wood, Mike


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Woolas, Phil


Stinchcombe, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stunell, Andrew



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Ms Bridget Prentice and



Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 3, line 6, after "a" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 63, in page 3, line 6, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
Amendment No. 64, in page 3, line 11, after "a" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".
Amendment No. 65, in page 3, line 11, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
Amendment No. 66, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
', or
(d) for the purpose of shooting dead the mammal after it was found or flushed out.'.
Amendment No. 67, in page 3, line 25, after "the" insert "deer, boar, mountjack,".
Amendment No. 68, in page 3, line 25, leave out "fox, hare or rabbit" and insert "wild mammal".
Amendment No. 69, in page 3, line 31, after "(3)(c)" insert "or (d)".
Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.

Mr. Hogg: Amendments Nos. 62 to 69 are my amendments, and amendment No. 66 is perhaps the most important of them. It is my intention to sit down before 10 o'clock, because I am anxious that we should have a Division on the amendment.
The amendments are designed to ensure that the use of dogs for the purposes of shooting remains lawful. I am sure that the House does not appreciate that, by introducing the Bill, the Government are striking a blow against shooting. Under clause 1, it is an offence for a person to hunt a wild mammal with a dog. The defences are set out in clause 7. Under that clause, the defence operates only if the first condition in clause 7(3) is satisfied.
In the context of hare shooting and/or rabbiting, the first condition may not be satisfied. Under the first condition, in order to use dogs to flush out rabbits or hares the purpose must be to protect crops, for example. Those who go rabbiting or hare shooting may do so simply for the sport of it, which is different from protecting crops. The first condition is satisfied if it is
for the purpose of obtaining meat to be used for human or animal consumption.
That may not be the purpose of the person who goes rabbiting or hare shooting for sport. On page 100 of his report, Lord Burns fully recognised that people go hare shooting for sport, and not for the purposes set out in clause 7(3).
The Government have frequently and loudly said that they have no intention of outlawing shooting. The Bill as originally drafted had that effect in respect of rabbiting. It is true that the Government have tabled amendment No. 49, which does not appear in this group but is in the next group, so the position of rabbiters is safeguarded. They would also be safeguarded by my amendment No. 66.
However, the position of those who want to use dogs for the purpose of shooting hares for sport is left open. They cannot lawfully use dogs to flush out hares if their purpose is to shoot them for sport, because that does not satisfy the narrow first condition in clause 7(3). The House—and, more particularly, the shooting fraternity—needs to know that the Bill as originally and as presently drafted is a direct blow against shooters. That is the significance of my amendments.
The Government are by stealth—like they do so much else—diminishing the right of people to go shooting, which is a lawful sport. It is just possible that the Government have made that error by inadvertence, but I have no reason to be charitable to them. I believe that, on the whole, they do things deliberately, and this is part and parcel of an overall policy of taking away rights by stealth.
It is extremely important that the House asserts the rights of shooters The best way of asserting and defending the rights of shooters is by pressing the amendment to a Division and voting on it. By that means, shooters will know that the Conservative party stands by their rights. That is what I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will do.

Mr. Banks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman finished?

Mr. Hogg: I have.

Mr. Banks: I know that there is only a minute to go, but one can say an awful lot in a minute.
I tell the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that, yet again, he has repeated the slur, which those on his side have used consistently, that the Bill is the thin and of the wedge and that in the end it will lead to a ban on shooting and fishing. That has never been our intention or that of those in the campaign. Yet again, he has tried to confuse the House, but we are not confused.

It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPENKER, pursuant to Orders [7 November and this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 324.

Division No. 133]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hoey, Kate


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hunter, Andrew


Bercow, John
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Beresford, Sir Paul



Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Brand, Dr Peter
Lidington, David


Brazier, Julian
LJIley, Rt Hon Peter


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Llwyd, Efyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Loughton, Tim


Burnett, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
McCrea, Dr William


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John



Mclntosr, Miss Anne


Chope, Christopher
Maclean Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Major, Rt Hon John


Collins, Tim
Maples, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan, Alan
Moore, Michael


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Fabricant, Michael
Oaten, Mark



Fallon, Michael
Ouml;pik, Lembit


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gill, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robathan, Andrew


Golding, Mrs Llin
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Gray, James
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Green, Damian
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Greenway, John
Ruffley, David


Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hammond, Philip
Shepherd, Richard


Harvey, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)


Hawkins, Nick
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hayes, John
Soames, Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Spring, Richard





Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Webb, Steve


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms, Robert
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell Sir Peter
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Wilkinson, John



Wilshire, David


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Winterton Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John



Tredinnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Gerald Howarth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Conrtry NE)
Clelland, David


Allan, Richard
Clwyd, Ann


Allen, Graham
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann



Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atherton, Ms Candy

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cooper, Yvette


Bailey, Adrian
Corbett, Robin


Baker, Norman
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ballard, Jackie
Corston, Jean


Banks, Tony
Cotter, Brian


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cox, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Benton, Joe



Berry, Roger
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Best, Harold
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Betts, Clive
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blackman, Liz
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Borrow, David
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)



Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Brake, Tom
Denham, Rt Hon John


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Dismore, Andrew


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Dobbin, Jim



Browne, Desmond
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Doran, Frank


Burden, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Drew, David


Burstow, Paul
Drown, Ms Julia


Butler, Mrs Christine
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Efford, Clive


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Etherington, Bill


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Feam, Ronnie


Caplin, Ivor
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Casale, Roger
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Caton, Martin
Flint, Caroline


Cawsey, Ian
Rynn, Paul


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Follett, Barbara


Chayfor, David
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Chidgey, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Clapham, Michael
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Andrew (St Ives)



Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gidley, Sandra






Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godsiff, Roger
McCabe, Steve


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Macdonald, Calum


Grocott, Bruce
McDonnell, John


Grogan, John
McFall, John


Gunnell, John
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McIsaac, Shona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hancock, Mike
McNamara, Kevin


Hanson, David
McNulty, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
MacShane, Denis


Harris, Dr Evan
Mactaggart, Fiona


Healey, John
McWalter, Tony


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
McWilliam, John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hendrick, Mark
Mallaber, Judy


Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hinchliffe, David
Martlew, Eric


Hood, Jimmy
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hope, Phil
Meale, Alan


Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian


Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Miller, Andrew


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mitchell, Austin


Hurst, Alan
Moffatt, Laura


Hutton, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Illsley, Eric
Morley, Elliot


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)



Jamieson, David
Mountford, Kali


Jenkins, Brian
Mudie, George


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Osborne, Ms Sandra



Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Plaskitt, James


Joyce, Eric
Pollard, Kerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pound, Stephen


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kemp, Fraser
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rapson, Syd


Kingham, Ms Tess
Raynsford, Nick


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lammy, David
Rendel, David


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roy, Frank


Lock, David
Ruane, Chris


Love, Andrew
Ruddock, Joan





Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Touhig, Don


Ryan, Ms Joan
Trickett, Jon


Sanders, Adrian
Truswell, Paul


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tynan, Bill


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Vaz, Keith


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Spellar, John
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Willis, Phil


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winnick, David


Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stunell, Andrew
Wood, Mike


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woolas, Phil


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Sir Teddy



Timms, Stephen
Tellers for the Noes:


Tipping, Paddy
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 6, line 37, at end insert—

—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons in respect of losses incurred by them as a result of—

(a) ceasing, by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act—

(i) to carry on their businesses so far as they consist of activities prohibited by this Act, or
(ii) to continue in paid employment so far as that employment was dependent on activities prohibited by this Act;

(b) damage by wild mammals which were previously controlled by activities prohibited by this Act.

(2) A scheme may, in particular—

(a) specify the descriptions of losses and businesses in respect of which payments are, or are not, to be made and the basis of valuation for determining losses,
(b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on whit h such amounts are to be calculated,
(c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including any time within which claims must be made and the provision of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims,
(d) include provision for arbitration of any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under the scheme or the amounts of any such payments.

(3) Before making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as appear to him to represent persons likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme.

(4) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in, pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Öpik.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:made:—

The House divided: Ayes 156,Noes 281;

Division No.134]
[10:14pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Allan, Richard
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Hoey, Kate


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Norman
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Beggs, Roy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Hunter, Andrew


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Hurst, Alan


Bercow, John
Johnson Smith,


Beresford, Sir Paul
Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Body, Sir Richard
Lansley, Andrew


Boswell, Tim
Leigh, Edward


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Letwin, Oliver


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)


Brake, Tom
Lidington, David


Brand, Dr Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Brazier, Julian
Livsey, Richard


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Loughton, Tim


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Burnett, John
McCrea, Dr William


Cash, William
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


(Chipping Barnet)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
McLoughin, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth
Madel, Sir David


(Rushcliffe)
Major, Rt Hon John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Maples, John


Collins, Tim
Mates, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cotter, Brian
May, Mrs Theresa


Cran, James
Mitchell, Austin


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moore, Michael


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Moss, Malcolm


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Duncan, Alan
Oaten, Mark


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paisley, Rev Ian


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Fabricant, Michael
Pickles, Eric


Fallen, Michael
Prior, David


Feam, Ronnie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Robathan Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fox, Dr Liam
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Fraser, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gidley, Sandra
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Sayeed, Jonathan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Greenway, John
Soames, Nicholas


Grieve, Dominic
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hammond, Philip
Steen, Anthony


Hancock, Mike
Stinchcombe, Paul


Harvey, Nick
Streeter, Gary


Hawkins, Nick
Stunell, Andrew


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tapsell, Sir Peter





Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wilkinson, John


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Willis, Phil


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wilshire, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townend, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tredinnick, David
young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. Lembit Öpik and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Gerald Howarth.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Coaker, Vernon


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Cohen, Harry


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Colman, Tony


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


(Swansea E)
Cooper, Yvette


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Jean


Austin, John
Cousins, Jim


Bailey, Adrian
Cox, Tom


Ballard, Jackie
Cranston, Ross


Banks, Tony
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Barnes, Harry
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack


Bayley, Hugh
(Copeland)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davidson, Ian


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benton, Joe
Davis, Rt Hon Terry


Berry, Roger
(B'ham Hodge H)


Best, Harold
Dean, Mrs Janet


Betts, Clive
Denham, Rt Hon John


Blackman, Liz
Dismore, Andrew


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dobbin, Jim


Blizzard, Bob
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Borrow, David
Doran, Frank


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dowd, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Drew, David


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drown, Ms Julia


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Buck, Ms Karen
Edwards, Huw


Burden, Richard
Efford, Clive


Burgon, Colin
Etherington, Bill


Burstow, Paul
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gerrard, Neil


Cawsey, Ian
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chidgey, David
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hanson, David






Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Healey, John
Meale, Alan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Merron, Gillian


Hendrick, Mark
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hepburn, Stephen
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hesford, Stephen
Miller, Andrew


Hill, Keith
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hood, Jimmy
Moriey, Elliot


Hope, Phil
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hopkins, Kelvin



Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)
Mountford, Kali


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mudie, George


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug



Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hutton, John
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Illsley, Eric
Perham, Ms Linda


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jamieson, David
Pollard, Kerry


Jenkins, Brian
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Quinn, Lawrie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rapson, Syd


Joyce, Eric
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rendel, David


Keeble, Ms Sally
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rogers, Allan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rooney, Terry


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Khabra, Piara S
Rowlands, Ted


Kidney, David
Roy, Frank


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ruane, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ruddock, Joan


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Lammy, David
Savidge, Malcolm


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Sawford, Phil


Lepper, David
Shaw, Jonathan


Leslie, Christopher
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Levitt, Tom
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Linton, Martin
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Lock, David
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Love, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McAvoy, Thomas
Spellar, John


McCabe, Steve
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)



Stoate, Dr Howard


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McDonnell, John



McFall, John
Taylor, David (NW Letes)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Timms, Stephen


McIsaac, Shona
Tipping, Paddy


Mackinlay, Andrew
Touhig, Don


McNamara, Kevin
Trickett, Jon


Mactaggart, Fiona
Truswell, Paul


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Mallaber, Judy
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)





Tynan, Bill
Wills, Michael


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Wareing, Robert N
Worthington, Tony


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wyatt, Derek


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
(Swansea W)



Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mr. Bridget Prentice and


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 3, line 6, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare".

No. 44, in page 3, line 11, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare"

No. 45, in page 3, line 25, leave out ", hare or rabbit" and insert "or hare"

No. 49, in page 3, line 49, at end insert—

'Rabbits

. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a rabbit.'.

No. 51, in page 4, line 3, leave out "rabbit or".

No. 46, in page 3, line 37, at end insert—

'7A.—(1) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that—

(a) the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of stalking a deer or flushing it out of cover, and
(b) the conditions in this paragraph were met.

(2) The first condition is—

(a) that reasonable steps were taken for the purpose of ensuring that as soon as possible after being found or flushed out the deer would be shot dead, and
(b) in particular that any dog used in the stalking or flushing out was kept under sufficiently close control to ensure that it did not prevent or obstruct achievement of the objective mentioned in paragraph (a).

(3) The second condition is that the stalking or flushing out took place entirely on land—

(a) which belonged (within the meaning of paragraph 22) to the person doing the stalking or flushing out, or
(b) which he had been permitted to use for that purpose by someone to whom the land belonged (within the meaning of that paragraph).'.

No. 48, in page 3 leave out lines 39 to 49 and insert—
'. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a rodent.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Amendment proposed: No. 50, in page 3, line 49, at end insert—

'Mink

. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under paragraph 1 to prove that the conduct to which the charge relates consisted of hunting a mink.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House divided: Ayes 119, Noes 295

Division No. 135]
[10.28 pm


AYES


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Llwyd, Efyn


Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bercow, John
McCrea, Dr William


Blunt, Crispin
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Breed, Colin
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Madel, Sir David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Major, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maples, John


Burnett, John
Mates, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa



Mitchell, Austin


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Collins, Tim
Moore, Michael


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Nicholls, Patrick


Cran, James
Oaten, Mark


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Öpik, Lembit


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paice, James


Duncan, Alan
Paisley, Rev Ian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Garnier, Edward
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Gill, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ruffley, David


Golding, Mrs Llin
St Aubyn, Nick



Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Dominic
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spring, Richard


Harris, Dr Evan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Harvey, Nick
Steen, Anthony


Hayes, John
Swayne, Desmond


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Hoey, Kate
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tredinnick, David


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Webb, Steve



Wells, Bowen


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Whittingdale, John


Lansley, Andrew
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Leigh, Edward
Wilshire, David


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David



Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. A. J. Beith and


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Mr. Douglas Hogg.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allen, Graham


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Allan, Richard
Ashton, Joe





Atherton, Ms Candy
Dean, Mrs Janet


Austin, John
Denham, Rt Hon John


Bailey, Adrian
Dismore, Andrew


Baker, Norman
Dobbin, Jim


Ballard, Jackie
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Banks, Tony
Doran, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Drew, David


Bayley, Hugh
Drown, Ms Julia


Begg, Miss Anne
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Edwards, Huw


Benton, Joe
Efford, Clive


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Best, Harold
Feam, Ronnie


Betts, Clive
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flint, Caroline


Blizzard, Bob
Flynn, Paul


Borrow, David
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Brake, Tom
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Galloway, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gerrard, Neil


Buck, Ms Karen
Gibson, Dr Ian


Burden, Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Burgon, Colin
Godsiff, Roger


Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Grocott, Bruce


Caplin, Ivor
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cawsey, Ian
Hancock, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Chaytor, David
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chidgey, David
Healey, John


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hendrick, Mark


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hepburn, Stephen



Heppell, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hope, Phil


Clwyd, Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coaker, Vernon
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Connarty, Michael
Hurst, Alan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hutton, John


Cooper, Yvette
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corbett, Robin
Illsley, Eric


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Corston, Jean
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cousins, Jim
Jamieson, David


Cox, Tom
Jenkins, Brian


Cranston, Ross
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)



Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)



Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Joyce, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Keeble, Ms Sally



Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)






Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Miller, Andrew


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Moffatt, Laura


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Moran, Ms Margaret


Khabra, Piara S
Morley, Elliot


Kidney, David
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Kilfoyle, Peter



King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Mountford, Kali


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Mudie, George


Kingham, Ms Tess
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Lammy, David
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Lepper, David
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Leslie, Christopher
Pearson, Ian


Levitt, Tom
Perham, Ms Linda


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pickthall, Colin


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Plaskitt, James


Linton, Martin
Pollard, Kerry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Pond, Chris


Lock, David
Pope, Greg


Love, Andrew
Pound, Stephen


McAvoy, Thomas
Powell, Sir Raymond


McCabe, Steve
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Primarolo, Dawn


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


McDonagh, Siobhain
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Macdonald, Calum
Quinn, Lawrie


McDonnell, John
Rapson, Syd


McFall, John
Raynsford, Nick


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Rendel, David


McIsaac, Shona
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


McNulty, Tony
Rooney, Terry


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ross, Emie (Dundee W)


Mallaber, Judy
Rowlands, Ted


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Roy, Frank


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruane, Chris


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Ruddock, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Meale, Alan
Ryan, Ms Joan


Merron, Gillian
Sanders, Adrian


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Sarwar, Mohammad


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Savidge, Malcolm





Sawford, Phil
Truswell, Paul


Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Shaw, Jonathan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tynan, Bill


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Ward, Ms Claire


Spellar, John
Wareing, Robert N


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Willis, Phil


Stunell, Andrew
Wills, Michael


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)



Wood, Mike


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wyatt, Derek


Timms, Stephen



Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Noes:


Touhig, Don
Ms Bridget Prentice and


Trickett, Jon
Dr. Nick Palmer.

Question accordingly negatived.

Remaining Government amendments agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions in the name of Margaret Beckett relating to Deferred Divisions and Mr. Stephen Timms relating to Vote on Account 2001–02 may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Question agreed to.

Hunting Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will know, 11 groups of amendments were before the House and it debated only two of them, which means that nine groups were either largely undiscussed or not discussed at all. Under the programme motion, I know that you, Mr. Speaker, must proceed to Third Reading, but it is within your discretion formally to inform the Lord Chancellor that this House has not properly or fully debated the Bill. I respectfully ask you to do that.

Mr. Speaker: I have no responsibility to do that, and I will not be doing so.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It should be pointed out for the record and for the benefit of their lordships that, in the debates in Committee and in the House today, those who are opposed to the Bill in principle have sought to talk at great length and with minimal content rather than debate the Bill properly. The Bill's opponents are entirely responsible for ensuring that the debates have not been as full as they might have been.

Mr. Speaker: We have Hansard as a record of our proceedings, and the other place can draw its own conclusions.

Mr. O'Brien: In commending the Bill to the House for its Third Reading, I am pleased to say that the Government have achieved their objective in promoting it. By that, I do not mean that we, as a Government, are necessarily pleased that the House has decided to adopt the option that would ban most hunting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might have his own views on that. However, as he explained when he opened the Second Reading debate just before Christmas, our aim was to enable the issue of hunting with dogs to be resolved. The House has now taken a clear view on how it wants to proceed, and I expect that view to be strongly endorsed once more if anyone decides to divide the House at the end of this debate. We have moved closer to a resolution of this long drawn out and contentious matter.
It has always been clear to us as a Government that it would be difficult to resolve the issue of hunting through the private Member's route. Private Members' Bills work best when there is general agreement that the policy to which they give effect is broadly supported and desirable. The only way the issue of hunting could be resolved was by making Government time available, and that is what we have done. We introduced a multi-option Bill and left it to hon. Members to decide which of the options they wished to adopt.
Overall, I think that our deliberations have been very productive and surprisingly good natured. It comes as no surprise to anyone that there have been strong and at times diametrically opposed views on this issue—there have even been middle-way views on them. Nevertheless, the debates have been broadly constructive.
The fact that earlier today we made a number of changes to the option that the House had earlier endorsed bears witness to the fact that those on both sides of the House felt that it was possible to engage in a genuine attempt to ensure that we passed the best possible law.
I would like to thank those who helped to draft the Bill. In particular, I thank the Countryside Alliance. It did not want the Bill, but it engaged in the process of policy making in a way that deserves great praise. I extend to it my personal appreciation of the courteous and commonsense approach that it adopted in the discussions that have been undertaken. I wish, in particular, to thank John Jackson for the way in which he has managed to guide the policy development of the Countryside Alliance.
I also want to compliment the Middle Way Group. Without resources or large numbers, it fought a sterling battle for its views to be heard, whether or not we agreed with them. The hon. Members for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) did the House a great service by promoting such views. They are a credit to us and I thank them for their contributions.
I extend my thanks to Deadline 2000, which prefers to be called the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals. In particular, I thank John Rolls of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Douglas Bachelor of the League Against Cruel Sports, Mike Baker of the International Fund for Animal Welfare and Bill Swan, the veterinary consultant who, with supporters throughout the country, provided a great deal of information on the option that was supported.
Those people and organisations engaged in a sensible parliamentary approach and showed that they could get results. They faced up to the policy issues and demonstrated leadership. People on the extreme wing of the animal rights movement—some of whom have engaged in the most appalling thuggery and violence—have said that the parliamentary system cannot work. I must tell them that the recent attack on the managing director of Huntingdon Life Sciences was appalling and should be condemned by all hon. Members. I know that most people who support animal welfare condemn it.
The way the Bill has been handled and the constructive debate on it have shown that the parliamentary system can indeed work. Whether we agree or disagree with the outcome, hon. Members can be proud that they have demonstrated that the system allows them to listen to the debate that is taking place in the country. They have proved that Parliament is a forum for the discussion of strongly felt issues, where issues are properly debated, and that a resolution can be achieved.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister help those people who believe in democracy by saying whether the Government would proceed with the Bill, in the likelihood that it does not become law, if they are re-elected? Although I accept that their re-election is a possibility, it is not something that I would want.

Mr. O'Brien: I have made it clear that it is for the House to determine the way in which the Bill is handled. I am not going to jump ahead, which the hon. Gentleman—no doubt for good reasons—invites me to


do. We will listen to the debates as they proceed in another place. We have set out our neutral position, which is to facilitate debate. When the Bill goes to another place, we will take the earliest opportunity to table amendments to restore the ability to debate the three options that were placed before this House. Members of another place will be able to discuss those and form a view. The Government will facilitate that, as was done in relation to legislation on Sunday trading. We said from the start that we intended to proceed on that basis. We have tried to play as straight a bat as possible by ensuring that people know about our approach.

Mr. Soames: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps in a moment; I want to make some progress.
Today's changes have improved the Bill. They bear witness to the fact that hon. Members have listened. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), who led for the Opposition. Like most—although certainly not all—members of his party, he is opposed to restrictions on hunting with dogs. He has advanced the view of people who favour the retention of hunting. I accept that he is at odds with the central purpose of the option on which the House decided, but he approached consideration of the Bill in Committee with a positive attitude and sought to improve it during its passage. I commend him for that. Some Opposition Members' speeches could have been much shorter, and there were suspicions that there was an attempt to delay progress, but I do not want to go into that. It is important that we recognise that the issue was debated sensibly and constructively.

Mr. Soames: The Minister says that he is proud of the way in which the House has handled the issue. Does he mean that he is proud that the majority in this place has been used to crush the rights of an entirely legal minority which has enjoyed its sport and way of life for thousands of years? Does he believe that that is something to be proud of?

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, has voted consistently for a ban on hunting. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed his views in relation to these matters. Members have been able to put forward their views as constituency representatives. The outcome may not suit the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), but that is democracy.
The debate throughout the country has been reflected in many ways in the outcome in the House. It is good that we have been able to have a sensible debate about these matters. I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex is angry about the outcome, but he has contributed in a sensible and reasoned way on many occasions and added to our knowledge of the issues. The improvements that we have seen to the Bill, and the way in which the House has contributed to making it better law, are thanks also to him. I am sure that making good law is important to the hon. Gentleman.
I pay tribute to the Middle Way Group, to other organisations, to the Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats—we have heard four different views from them, and three in Committee. I thank all concerned.
I should pay a final and important tribute. The House will join me in thanking Lord Burns and the members of his team. The fact that the committee's report was cited so often by all sides who participated in the debate demonstrates what an invaluable and objective document it is. I am grateful to those who were responsible for it.
We have had private Members' Bills on this issue almost year upon year. I am delighted that on this occasion the House has been given the opportunity to consider it again collectively and reach a collective view. The vote in Committee of the whole House was decisive. Even those who do not agree with the outcome must accept that. The Bill is before the House for Third Reading, and I commend it to the House. The House should be able to endorse the Bill because it reflects its will on a free vote on a matter of conscience. It has been a good debate. It is a good Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Lidington: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but I for one will not be tempted to set up house in the Government's big tent. The courtesy and humour that characterised the debate in Committee and most of the exchanges at all stages of our proceedings have been welcome. That proved possible, despite strong feelings being expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the argument. To some extent, that atmosphere has been helped by the fact that there are honourably held differences of opinion within the three main political parties. In addition, some of the heat went out of the debate when it became apparent that the Government were engaged in a charade. Trying to ram the Bill through the Commons when a spring or early summer election was more than likely meant that it stood no chance of becoming law in this Parliament.
I welcome the limited concessions made by the Government as a result of the Standing Committee's discussions. However, they do not make a fundamentally bad and misguided Bill acceptable. The Bill creates serious new criminal offences that will apply to the activities of a large number of our fellow citizens and to activities that are lawful now, and that have been for many generations past.
The Minister and other champions of the Bill have always argued that restrictions on individual liberty are justified in order to end cruelty to animals and improve animal welfare. I have gained growing confidence as our debates have proceeded and we have argued our case, examined the detail of the Bill and explored the principles behind it. It has become clear that the weight of the argument has been with those of us who opposed the Bill in principle from the start. There is welcome evidence that our arguments are being increasingly understood in the country as a whole.

Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend accept that what has been so shaming about the Government's behaviour is their complete ignorance, as revealed today, of the consequences of a ban on foxhunting? For example,


on the removal of fallen stock, the Minister was all at sea. The Government clearly have not thought through the consequences of the Bill, which therefore stands at risk.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My concern about the practical consequences of the Bill is one of three reasons why the House should deny it a Third Reading.
First, intellectual confusion lies at the heart of the Bill. Its supporters have consistently male their case on the grounds of animal welfare and seeking to end cruelty. Those are laudable aspirations, but the Bill says that hunting rodents, and, after this evening, rabbits, with dogs, is somehow okay. One need not be an expert zoologist to think that a rat must surely feel fear, exhaustion and pain every bit as much as a fox.
If one presses that point, the ground shifts. We are told that exceptions should be made for rodents or rabbits because they are vermin and becausr of the damage that they do. The moral argument h is been abandoned wholesale, and the very same utilitarian argument about vermin control can, and should, be applied to mink and foxes as much as to rats or rabbits. There is no consistent moral argument from the proponents of the Bill, and they can make no logical difference on the grounds of cruelty or animal welfare between the different species that the Bill treats entirely differently.
My second objection concerns the impact of the Bill and relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Earlier today we debated the economic impact, the impact on the disposal of fallen stock and the fact that the Bill would render jobless and homeless significant numbers of decent, law-abiding people in some of our most remote rural areas. We know, too, from the debates that we have had on the detail of the Bill that there is still a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity about what the measure would mean in practice.
We know that the Bill is intended to lead to the demise of organised hunting with packs of hounds, but exploration of its detail makes it clear that it would have a serious impact on the work of people such as gamekeepers and farmers in their task of controlling vermin. To cite just one example, the National Gamekeepers Organisation has pleaded with hon. Members to allow its members to continue to use dogs to flush out and sometimes to catch stoats. The organisation's argument is that the control of mustelids through the use of dogs is an essential part of practical, everyday gamekeeping work, which has been ignored by the authors of the Bill.

Mr. John Greenway: Will not another major practical effect of the Bill be to ban hunting with dogs in the national parks, whereas the Burns report made it clear that that could not be done without the use of dogs? How can the Minister ask us to accept a Bill on the basis that the Government have won the argument, when they have ignored the conclusion of their own Burns report?

Mr. Lidington: The evidence of the Burns report and the arguments about the Bill have started to highlight exactly the sort of practical problem described by my hon. Friend. Many people who might previously have said that

they favoured ending animal cruelty and that that probably meant banning hunting will pause and reconsider whether that point of view is right, and whether a ban on hunting might have serious consequences for people trying to control pests, especially in areas of the country where the alternative methods of control investigated by Lord Burns and his team are clearly impractical.
My third objection relates to the way in which it is proposed to enforce the criminal offences provided for in the Bill. As we have not had time to consider the relevant part of the Bill in Committee or on Report, I hope that it will be debated in particular detail when the Bill passes to the other House.
Not only does the Bill create new criminal offences carrying a penalty of a fine of up to £5.000, but it provides for a specific power to arrest someone who has committed or is believed to have committed an offence. It therefore brings hunting with hounds into the category of arrestable offences that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, is generally restricted to extremely serious criminal offences. Even those who argue for a ban on hunting cannot reasonably classify hunting with dogs in that category.
The Bill gives a constable the power to arrest not only someone whom he reasonably suspects may have committed an offence, but someone whom he reasonably suspects may be about to commit an offence. On 25 January I received a letter from the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who stated in answer to a question of mine that he had investigated what other offences were arrestable. He had found that there were a number of powers of arrest without warrant, such as those contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which stand outside the definition in PACE. However, he continued:
None of them allow for arrest on the grounds that a person is about to commit an offence.
For the purpose of trying to stop hunting with hounds, we are giving the police draconian powers, including a power of arrest that appears to be unique and unprecedented in existing criminal legislation.
I could describe many similar examples if I had time to do so. The Bill grants power to seize a dog, but contains no provision on what is to happen during the weeks or months between the seizure and the outcome of any court proceedings. On that point, the Kennel Club told me in a letter that the Bill follows arrangements previously provided for in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. I would hardly regard that as an encouraging precedent. There are also powers to impose a life ban on owning a dog, which is a wholly disproportionate penalty for the offences that are being created.
I am conscious that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to contribute. I believe that the Bill is hostile to individual freedom and that it will produce no gain in terms of animal welfare. It will damage the livelihoods of thousands of our fellow citizens and harm the liberty of many thousands more. I believe that it is a thoroughly bad Bill and that the House should reject it. If the majority of hon. Members insist on carrying it forward, those of us who have opposed it from its inception will carry on the struggle with growing confidence in our arguments, both in another place and in the country.

Mr. Banks: For many years I have been involved in various campaigns in this place to ban hare coursing, deer hunting, foxhunting and mink hunting. In fact, a ban was one of the first things that I tried to achieve when I was elected in 1983. The House will therefore understand that I am delighted with the progress that has been made on the Bill.
I suppose that I can understand the strong feelings that have been generated on all sides of the argument. I am glad to say that friendships have remained intact despite all that, even though there have been some strong disagreements, which have occurred not only across the arguments, but within the different parties. This not a single-party issue. Splendid support has been given by a number of Conservative Members, although it has clearly not been easy for them to give so much support to the cause of banning the hunting of wild animals with dogs.
I said that I understood the deep feelings about the issue, but I must say that after all these years of listening to the views that have been expressed—I have studied as much as anyone the various arguments—I cannot understand how anyone can take pleasure in killing animals. That is non-negotiable for me. I cannot understand or comprehend how anyone can take pleasure from that activity.
I say to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) that there are some loose ends in the Bill, which is untidy in certain respects. Concessions have been made, and he was right to point them out. Some of them may have been made because of the strength of the argument. Of course, one does not want to make the law unenforceable. The fact is, however, that one cannot be absolute in any legislation. I have been unhappy even about some of the concessions, but I understand why we had to make them. We have to be political about the matter, as other dimensions must be taken into account—not least what happens to the Bill when it goes into another place. I do not think that we should be berated or criticised for not being absolute in our approach. If I had my way, I would say that no one should be able to kill anything other than the odd flea, wasp or insect that gives us problems. I know that I can be categorised as an extremist in that respect, but I know how we must make this place work and I am more than happy to ensure that it does so. Even if the legislation is not all that I would want, it has certainly gone much of the way to making me feel that we have achieved something significant.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury hinted, as no doubt others will, that the argument is by no means finished. I know that the opponents of this legislation will not give up in this place, although they might have to for the moment, and that they will certainly not give up in another place. We expect much opposition in the House of Lords.
I am fully aware of the fact that the Bill will fall before the election: it will not reach the statute book. That is a perfectly reasonable statement on which we could all agree. I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench, however, that I hope that re-introducing the Bill will be a manifesto commitment—[Interruption.] This issue will never go away in this House.
I am wise enough to know that although we might be winning tonight, there are many more battles to come. I am merely saying to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench

that they cannot walk away from the issue. I do not want anyone in government to feel that they have discharged their responsibilities and that they can forget about the matter. It cannot be ignored, it must not be forgotten, and if it is defeated in an other place, it must be brought back. There will be people like me in this place who will make sure of that until we succeed.

Dr. Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statesmanlike remarks of the Minister on this subject about the power of democracy to achieve change will only finally convince people out in the country if, at the end, a final decision is made rather than leaving the issue dangling for years to come?

Mr. Banks: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Although I have given up my ambition to be a world statesperson—

Mr. Soames: You are.

Mr. Banks: That is very decent of you, old chap. I am afraid that that view is not necessarily shared by all of us.
This is the place where we decide. There has been a majority in this House and in the country on this issue for some years. There is not a division between rural and urban people. There has always been a majority—and there is a clear majority for this legislation in rural areas as there is in urban areas. That should never be forgotten. Those who say that the Labour party does not understand the countryside or the rural vote should wait and see—as they did at the previous election—what happens at the next election. We are quite happy to sit back and rest on our record in that respect.
As my hon. Fnend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) and the Minister said, this is where we decide issues of animal welfare. We have always decided issues of animal welfare in this place. Looking back over the decades, one thinks of bull baiting, cock fighting, dog fighting, otter hunting—the list goes on, and we have decided on it. Many of the arguments used when such legislation was going through the House are precisely the same as those used against the Hunting Bill. We will look back in years to come on the legislation that we have passed and wonder what all the fuss was about from those who opposed it.
I am delighted, therefore, that we have reached this far, although I accept that there is some way to go. Like others, I should like to offer a few thanks. I should like first to thank the Minister. With my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, he has had to put up with a great deal, but he has always been cool, reasonable and honest with the House, which we can all respect. Like him, I pay tribute to the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports, the International Fund tor Animal Welfare and all their professional workers and helpers for their compassion in conducting the campaign. They deserve a great deal of thanks from us and all animal lovers in this country and around the world. I am delighted with this Bill, and I am looking forward to voting in favour of its Third Reading.

Mr. Öpik: It is funny to recognise that all three organisations claim that the Burns report proves that they are right. The Middle Way Group is of course the one that really is right about the Burns report, and we hope to make that case in another place.
I thank the Minister—and the Parliamentary Secretary—for his very kind words bout the Middle Way Group and my colleagues. Although the debate has sometimes been heated, everyone involved genuinely believes in doing the right thing and finding the best outcome. There is a shared belief that animal welfare is important, but the difference between us is on the degree to which animal welfare should be balanced with civil liberties, and on the best practical way of balancing those two considerations.
From the beginning, the Middle Way Group has tried to put a rational and well-argued case for balancing animal welfare with civil liberties. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) and I have formed a gang of three—the three musketeers of justice—to bring reason and sense to the debate. Given our enormous secretariat, consisting of Jim Barrington, who is both our chief executive and our typist, I am surprised by and delighted with the amount of support that we have been given. I should like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have listened to our arguments. Some of them have been persuaded, including the Home Secretary and three other Cabinet Ministers. Others may not have been persuaded to vote for the Middle Way Group' s proposals, but I am satisfied that these are now treated with respect. People understand that we are genuinely trying to provide a third option between an outright ban and self-regulation.

Dr. Palmer: What has always puzzled me about the position of members of the Middle Way Group is that they seem to oppose their own legislation. On Second Reading, they voted against a Bill that would, in principle, have given them the chance to implement their proposals. Tonight they have consistently voted against the Bill, and I would be surprised if they voted in favour of it on Third Reading.

Mr. Öpik: Hansard will answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. We have tried to make consistent judgments as best we can. He may differ with us, but that is a matter for him. I like to think that most hon. Members do not question our motives.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Öpik: I shall not give way, because time is short.
It is interesting to note that a Deadline 2000 advertisement in a national newspaper cost twice the entire budget of the Middle Way Group for three years. People should judge us on the resonance of our idea, rather than question our motives. We have battled against incredible odds, given the huge resources that other organisations have had. I am glad to say that the Middle Way Group has been on to something important, and has had a new way of looking at the issue. If it had been in existence five or 10 years ago, perhaps regulation would have been introduced, and we would not have ended up where we are now.
There are problems with the Bill. The way in which it has been constructed has produced enormous logical contradictions. Members of the public could be criminalised if their dogs persistently chased mammals in the prohibited list even if the owners meant no harm in their actions, but were merely not 100 per cent. in control of their animals. The Minister reassured us that, through an act of faith, we should trust that a solution will come to replace the important role played by kennels in dealing with fallen stock. The public do not share his optimism. Such an act of faith does not sit comfortably on the shoulders of a nervous rural population, who have felt hard done by for a long time as a result of Government policy.
No regard has been paid to compensation. For me at least, the Minister did not effectively explain any logical difference between a ban on fur farming, which attracted compensation from the Government, and a ban on hunting with dogs, which in his judgment does not warrant compensation from the Government. That will be an important consideration for the public.
There are other examples of moral randomness. Why is falconry all right? Why is angling okay? Why is hunting fox with dogs not acceptable? The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) again said that he was opposed to hunting any animal for fun, yet not once has he said that he wants a ban on angling, but perhaps he will intervene to correct that. It is very clear that those contradictions undermine the Bill's philosophical consistency.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Mr. Öpik: For the sake of clarity, I ask the House to accept that I shall not give way. I think that I have a fairly good record of giving way under normal circumstances, but time is short.
What is the difference between a rodent and a mink? Mink are one of the most persistent and pernicious pests in our countryside. They are environment destroyers and they are not a natural part of our countryside and yet, for some reason that I just do not understand, the House chose not to allow the hunting of mink with dogs.

Mrs. Golding: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I give way to my hon. Friend, for obvious reasons.

Mrs. Golding: So my hon. Friend should, and I thank him for it. Can he see the logic in producing publicity about protecting the water vole, whose main predator is the mink, while passing a Bill prohibiting the extermination of the mink?

Mr. Öpik: I cannot add to what my hon. Friend says. She has been assiduous and consistent in her position. Hon. Members who voted to ban mink hunting may choose to think hard about the consequences of what they have done.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: rose—

Mr. Öpik: I shall not give way, and I cannot make that any clearer. [Interruption.] It is perfectly obvious why I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and I do not need to explain why I did so.
My conclusion on the dynamic is that there is some emotional attachment to the fox, which may have been caused by television images. Perhaps we grew up loving foxes just as future generations will love other animals. Sometimes, cynically perhaps, I ask myself whether Roland Rat will have the same impact on a future generation of parliamentarians as Basil Brush appears to have had on the present one. If we allow emotion to determine legislation, the result will be bad legislation.
There is another contradiction about which we should be clear: the debate is about not banning the killing of foxes, but banning one method of killing foxes. The Bill will not save the life of a single fox and might serve to increase suffering through the process of fox control.
Deadline 2000, even at this late hour, can think again. It can win, but win in a fairer way. The Middle Way Group's proposals are still available. We think that they are good, and they are free. We offer them to Deadline 2000.
Again and again, the Middle Way Group's tenets have come to the fore and our claims have been reaffirmed. We still believe that stopping cruelty would be best achieved by inspection, regulation, fines and licensing and that all that could be paid for by a licensing fee. Do hon. Members who support the Deadline 2000 proposals realise that 13 of the 23 paragraphs of their Bill are in ours and that 70 of the 102 sub-paragraphs of the Middle Way Group's proposals are the same as theirs?
I did not enter the debate to beat Deadline 2000 and I did not participate to win. The Middle Way Group is not seeking victory. We are looking for solutions, so here is the deal. The Middle Way Group is still promoting its ideas and will do so until the game is completely up. We shall carry on trying to balance animal welfare considerations with civil liberties. We shall debate the issue and take feedback, as I have done tonight on the group's behalf on compensation.
If Deadline 2000 came round and began to think that perhaps regulation would achieve its goals, that would be a victory not for the Middle Way Group, but for Deadline 2000 and for the hon. Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who put the issue on the agenda. If we achieved such a result, that would be a triumph not for any individual, but for the House because it would show that, once in a while, and even on extremely emotive issues of conscience, hon. Members have the courage, maturity and humility to think again when they consider a proposal that would improve on the position from which we started.

Mr. Michael: May I respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who made some good points and, with respect, some weak ones? The fact that there is a good deal of respect in the House for the way in which the Middle Way Group has put its argument, been constructive and tried to produce a workable proposal was reflected in the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister, but we must make it clear that the respect for those individuals and the effort that they have put in—in particular, I offer my respect to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire for the way in which he

has conducted hin self—should not be taken for acceptance of the strength of their argument, which I do not think has stood up to scrutiny.
It is entirely wrong to think that a licensing system, giving rise to all sorts of bureaucracy and complications, would resolve the problems relating to animal welfare and caused by animal cruelty. That does not reduce my respect for the attempt by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to explore the possibilities, but I do not think we should go too far in demonstrating respect for individuals. We should not let it be thought that arguments have stood the test of debate when they have not.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for having the grace to give way. Will he comment on the Middle Way Group's position on the regulation of hare coursing? In what sense will the public perceive that as a genuine compromise on animal cruelty—a compromise of the kind that the words "middle way" seem to suggest?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The objections to hare coursing are strong. Doing away with it, rather than regulation, is the answer: that is where the Middle Way Group's proposals have fallen down.
I want to say a little about the authority with which the Bill will move from here to another place. Doubt has been cast by Opposition Members who have sought to confuse the situation rather than clarifying it. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested that there had not been enough time for proper debate of the issues, but there was a massive amount of time in Committee. We heard the same argur cents repeatedly, some of them not about issues related to the Bill but intended to delay the proceedings. That is t perfectly legitimate way in which to seek to oppose a Bill, but let us not pretend that this was quality debate: sometimes it was like watching paint dry, and on some occasions it was like watching paint dry three times, and the same coat at that.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury said that he was worried about the fact that the Bill created new crimes, but we do that frequently in the House. Gone are the simple days of the short Bill which—as many of us point out to our constituents when we take them around this place—in a couple of lines dealt with the control of crossbows. Some of us might like the use of similar items to be controlled on our estates, but many pages would now be needed to produce such legislation. The legislation that we handle nowadays is often complex, and it is clear that legislation on hunting will involve complex issues.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of complexity. Does he know the difference between a rabbit and a hare, and can he tell me which feels pain the most?

Mr. Michael: It would have been an extremely good thing had the hon. Gentleman spent some time in the Committee, where he would have heard such points raised ad nauseam—philosophical points, which are part of the diversion that the Bill's opponents seek to introduce.
The weight of the argument has not favoured those who have tried to introduce philosophical complexities into a simple Bill. Its opponents have not been willing to engage in the detail that must be followed through until the point of principle has been dealt with once and for all. That is


why we need the Bill to be passed, and to put beyond doubt the principles it establishes I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will withdraw some of his remarks about battling on for ever. I hope he will recognise that we have had adequate debate, and that clear decisions have been made by a parliamentary majority.
That majority has great authority The decision was taken by a large majority of hon. Members on a free vote. It is that weight of individual decisions, that choice made by hon. Members in accordance with their own consciences, that gives the decision such authority. There were those who suggested that the Bill would have greater authority had it been treated entirely as a Government Bill. It has greater authority for having been decided on on the basis of the individual choices of hon. Members. The free vote gives it that authority.
The House has a responsibility to take decisions in such matters. I know that there are hon. Members who do not like this decision: we heard from them at great length in Committee. There have been occasions on which I have been one of the minority in the House and have seen something go through that I have not liked—when we were in opposition, we saw that frequently—but this is not a matter on which the parties should have been polarised. Indeed, hon. Members such as the shadow Home Secretary have demonstrated that it is possible to do other than simply go with the flow.
The authority of a decision taken on a free vote by such a large majority in this House should be respected in another place. There is a constitutional issue here, since the decision has been taken by those elected to this place to take such decisions.
I regret that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has again sought to confuse some of the issues. Any Bill has to draw lines. Sometimes those lines involve things that are untidy on one side or the other. That is what we explored in Committee. We heard about the problems of taking decisions if someone is taking a walk in the countryside. I think that many of us were satisfied that the legislation was clear and dealt with those issues satisfactorily, but the House has had the opportunity tonight, and has taken that opportunity, to clarify the lines and to ensure that there is no confusion: rabbits are out of the Bill, while it is clear that the stalking of deer is not forbidden by the Bill.
On the difficulties of demarcation with regard to rodents and vermin, the hon. Member for Aylesbury cannot argue that we need clarification and then complain about the situation when an amendment is tabled and hon. Members unanimously choose to make that clarification. The issues that were shown to be unclear in Committee have been made clear by the House's choices tonight. The Bill before us is a clear Bill. It bans the hunting of foxes with hounds. It bans the hunting of deer with hounds, but does not ban stalking. It bans hare coursing. It bans the hunting of mink on the grounds that the parallel with foxhunting with hounds for pleasure is clear. On the question of nuisance from mink, the maximum damage is caused by hunting mink with hounds.
We therefore have a clear Bill which carries the authority of a large majority in the House, not least since individual decisions were made on the basis of hon. Members' individual consciences That should be respected by the other place, which should pass the Bill with speed into law.

Sir Peter Emery: I have always argued that one should have a debate in the House, but when I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Right hon."] I apologise. Having heard the speech of the very right hon. Gentleman, I am not surprised that he lost his position of leadership of the Assembly in Wales.
I was not able to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair on Second Reading. I was not on the Committee and this is the first time I have spoken on this particular Bill. I have three packs in my constituency. If Labour Members really think that they represent the view of the countryside in bringing the Bill forward, they are so out of touch as to be living in wonderland.
Ever since I began representing Honiton, and then East Devon, I made it absolutely clear that I would take no action whatever to limit activities that have been countryside pursuits for centuries, or join in any attempt by this place to alter the wishes of those who form a minority in the United Kingdom but a majority in my constituency. It is quite wrong that a vast city and town element should be able to force on people in the countryside something that is unacceptable to them.
I believed that this place should be willing to support and look after the minority interests of this country. There is no way in which this Bill does that. There is no way in which this Bill takes into account what is necessary to support activities that have been countryside pursuits for centuries, and that is entirely unacceptable. I am a parliamentarian who believes that all aspects of the nation's pursuits should be considered and dealt with fairly. The Bill does not do that at all.
An analysis of the Bill reveals that aspects of those pursuits have simply not been considered. In my constituency, a farmer had to have a cow put down because of a broken hip. However, because of the problems with foot and mouth disease, he was unable to move the dead animal without a special licence. A special licence was issued. Believe it or not, that licence allowed the animal to be moved either to a certain knacker's yard or to hunt kennels.
It is tragic that such kennels will no longer exist if the Bill's provisions are implemented. You know and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Bill's opponents are trying to defend those kennels, with which the Government wish to do away. It is a terrifying prospect that the Bill will seek to turn quite ordinary, everyday people living in my constituency into criminals—[Interruption.]
I suggest that those who laugh at that come down and tell my farmers and constituents that they think it is funny. If they came down and did that, they would be laughing on the other side of their faces. But they do not come down to consider the issue with local hunters and farmers and with other local people. It is laughable to say that the three packs in my constituency are other than supported by farmers and the ordinary, everyday people who follow the hunt. Many of those people are Labour supporters, and they find it very strange that their particular activity is being set upon by a Labour Government.
If people believe that it is wise or intelligent to turn those people into criminals, they are so out of touch that they cannot understand. The right hon. Member for


Cardiff, South and Penarth shakes his head. Why does he not come down and talk to the people whose jobs will be thrown away by the Bill?

Mr. Michael: ; The right hon. Gentleman assumes that people who support the Bill have not discussed the matter with those whose lives will be affected by it, or listened to what they have had to say. We have done that: over time, many of us have listened, and understood.

Sir Peter Emery: If that is correct, you paid little attention to what those people had to say. You paid no attention to the way in which they will be affected or to their belief that they will be made criminals. [Interruption.] I am sorry to say that I do not believe that many ordinary, normal, law-abiding people will wish to implement the Bill. Many will take positive action against what they consider to be wrong, and they will end up in the courts. I hope that you have enough prisons to put them in, but I do not think that you will, because—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, and he must not keep using the word "you".

Sir Peter Emery: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are on my side—[Interruption.] I withdraw that remark immediately. I understand your stricture only too well.
What I am really trying to say—

Mr. Stephen Pound: Keep going. You are winning over the waverers. [Laughter.]

Sir Peter Emery: The strange thing is that Labour Members think that this is funny, and that people in my constituency do not consider it very important. If I began laughing at the views that Labour Members might express about the miners, for example, they would say that that was terrifying. This issue is as important to my constituents as are the problems faced by miners in constituencies that have mines.
What I want to hammer home is that the Government will come to regret this Bill. They have not heard the last of the matter. They do not really understand what the Bill's effect on the country generally will be. Labour Members smile about that, but they are out of touch. They believe that the Bill will be passed tonight and then get through the Lords and become law automatically. I only hope that they are proved wrong, because the proposals in the Bill would be a tragedy for the majority of people in the countryside.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Who speaks for the countryside—the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), with his three packs, or me, the hon. Member for Pendle, with my one pack? I represent a rural constituency. Every week of my life, I meet people who work on the land. I do not represent an urban constituency; it has towns, of course, but it has a large rural element. Many Labour Members represent rural

constituencies. What has always stuck in my throat is that Conservative Members, with all their prejudices, proclaim in Parliament that it is they who speak for countryside. They do not.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has left the Chamber, but he talked about the majority crushing the minority. The majority view has the right to prevail. That is the reality. John Stuart Mill made that point in his classic essay on liberty—the majority view has the right to prevail but it must exercise that right defensively and not offensively. So we said, in the Chamber and in Committee, "Let's hear the arguments." However, Conservative Members have not persuaded us of their views and, more important, they have not persuaded people outside.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred dismissively to Deadbeat 2000 rather than Deadline 2000. That upset me. Deadline 2000 has the support not only of the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare—organisations which Conservative Members may consider rather tangential—but of the RSPCA, whose patron is Her Majesty the Queen. The Queen is on our side. The RSPCA has millions of members. Conservative Members paint a picture of millions of people disagreeing with what we are doing, whereas the reality is that those people support us and want the Bill on the statute book.
We hear about country sports and field sports. Why do we not hear about blood sports? Hunting is a blood sport—it is killing for fun. I think that hunting with dogs brutalises people. Conservative Members will say that I have got this wrong, but I believe that hunting brutalises people because it is cruel. For that reason, it should no longer be tolerated.
Finally, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kehnedy), on piloting the Bill through the Committee stage with great skill. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Tom King: I could not believe that the Government would proceed with the Bill today, given the state of agriculture and the countryside. I make no secret of the fact that I am opposed to the Bill.
There has been despair about farming for some months now—perhaps for a couple of years; now there is real fear. Vets on farms are examining animals to see whether foot and mouth will be identified on those farms. Farming is not what it was the last time there was a foot and mouth outbreak, when farm had a setback and then recovered. For most farmers today, if their animals get foot and mouth, it will be the end of their livelihood and of a family occupation which may have gone on for generations. However, the implications are much wider than that.
On the hunting 0f stags, there are 10,000 magnificent red deer in the west country and the south-west of England. There are 4,000 to 6,000 in the area covered by the three packs of stag hounds. I think that many Labour Members still do not understand the point, although I have spoken about it before, that the hunts are, in a very real


sense, the guardians of the deer. Hunts inhibit poaching, protect the deer and deal with the casualties. Without the hunts, nobody knows what will happen to injured deer hit by cars. Traffic has been a threat to the deer, but now a more deadly threat exists.
Deer can catch foot and mouth disease. If that happens, the Government will be faced with a ghastly decision: not on the niceties of whether or not there should be hunting or culling by shooting, but on whether to authorise the complete extermination of deer—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that what I am saying is true. Despite the magnitude of such issues, the House has spent the day debating this measure.
I have been a Member of the House for a long time—too long, some hon. Members might say. The House has not done itself great credit by engaging in an exercise about which there is deep cynicism. No one in the Chamber actually thinks that the Bill will go through, although we know that we have no chance of preventing Third Reading. The Government will have their victory tonight. Many decent people who are in the depths of despair will be desperately distressed by these events. Although the Government will win, their insensitivity today will not be forgotten in the countryside. The time will come when they will pay the penalty for it.

Mr. Garnier: I pay tribute to the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who spoke on Second Reading, have given signal service to the House and have spoken up for the issue that we seek so valiantly to defend. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), not only on his 75th birthday but on all that he has done during his many years as a Member of the House.
I join the Minister in that I am happy to congratulate the Countryside Alliance and thank it for all that it has done to bring some sanity to the debate. I found the Minister's thanks to Lord Burns rather extraordinary; they were more like a gin trap than true thanks. The Government and the Bill's supporters have wholly ignored the Burns report.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater pointed out, the Bill is a complete waste of parliamentary time and public money. Nobody who has given the matter any thought believes that the Bill will become law. The rural economy is in crisis and the country suffers from a host of problems, yet the Government decided that we should discuss the Bill today.
The Bill is more like a colander than an iron-clad. Although we plugged one or two holes in Committee and on Report, it is still more holes than metal. It will sink—and good riddance. The Bill is disastrous—drafted by Deadline 2000. It is inimical to the interests of the countryside and to the country as a whole.
A law that we frequently pass in this place is the law of the unforeseen consequence. Nothing demonstrates that more easily than the Bill. The measure was published last autumn. One did not need to be a rocket scientist to anticipate its likely consequences. Its deficiencies have been apparent to all, yet its proponents have done nothing to cure them. In the Standing Committee, it was

interesting to see how the jaws of the Bill's supporters dropped as they discovered that it was incompetently drafted and infelicitous.
The Bill is intellectually confused and illogical. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) has ably demonstrated that, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). The Bill is also politically inept. It is economically illiterate and it tries to legislate against nature. It is a recipe for social division and is draconian in its criminal penalties. It brings with it none of the countervailing benefits for animal welfare claimed for it by its proponents. The Bill is morally flawed. It will seriously compromise the welfare of the fox, the deer, the mink, the water vole and the hare. It is illiberal. It is unfair.
According to recent polls, a majority opposes a ban, yet the thoughtless majority in the House continues to press the measure right to the wire. Not only is the Bill unfair but it will not even serve the purpose that its proponents claim for it. The only thing to do with it is to throw it out—let us do so now.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I thank those whom I need to thank? First, I thank the Home Office officials and parliamentary counsel for the work that they have done. Secondly, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Jane Kennedy), for her solid support and for weathering the slings, arrows and outrageous compliments of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who is not now in his place but was certainly very evident in Committee.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), who has been present for most of the debates and whose contribution to a ban, if it is enacted, will have been historic. As someone who originates from Worcester, I can say that Worcester ought to be very proud of him because he is one of the few new Members who have made a great impact on the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his wise advice; my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) for his help in dealing with some complex policy issues; my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) for his solid support; and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) for his sterling job of not whipping the Bill. 1 also thank my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), for Basildon (Angela Smith) and for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) who have served as Parliamentary Private Secretaries.
This short Bill was debated at length on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. There was a second full day's debate on the Floor of the House on the options and there were 15 Committee sittings, so there was ample time for debate, if only some of the speeches made by Opposition Members had been just a bit shorter.
I thought that the comments made by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) were ill judged. He suggested that the only people who care about foot and mouth disease in the farming community somehow support hunting. His comments were cheap and opportunist in attempting to use the issue of foot and mouth disease to support hunters' views. Views in rural


communities are strong on foot and mouth disease, and he should not seek to use the issue in that way. The House is united in supporting the farming community in its battle against foot and mouth disease, so he is wrong to suggest that the House is somehow divided on the issue. I think that that was cheap.
The Bill will give effect to the wishes of the House: it will ban the hunting of wild mammals with dogs, except in specific circumstances. As a result of the changes made earlier today, it will remain legal to hunt rabbits and rats with dogs and to use dogs for deer stalking. The Bill is now more clearly focused on foxhunting, deer hunting, mink hunting and hare hunting and coursing. It is probably fair to say that those activities cause the greatest concern in this country, and the Bill reflects that.
The Bill finally puts paid to the suggestion that there is somehow a slippery slope to a ban on fishing and shooting. That is complete nonsense. After debate, rodents and rabbits were removed from the Bill, and Members showed that they would have no truck with slippery slopes. The Government support fishing and shooting. Let me unequivocally repeat the guarantee that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave: there will be no ban on fishing and shooting while he is in No. 10 Downing street.
As I have said, the Government have been neutral throughout the Bill's proceedings. Our sole aim has been to facilitate debate and to ensure that this most contentious subject can be dealt with once and for all. Let me say on a personal note that I support the Bill, even though it deals with civil liberty issues, because I do not believe that there should be a civil liberty to be cruel for entertainment. Killing for fun is wrong. I personally commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 140.

Division No. 136]
[11.59pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blackman, Liz


Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Borrow, David


Allan, Richard
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Amess, David
Brand, Dr Peter


Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)
Brinton, Mrs Helen



Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Browne, Desmond


Ashton, Joe
Buck, Ms Karen


Atherton, Ms Candy
Burden, Richard


Austin, John
Burgon, Colin


Bailey, Adrian
Butler, Mrs Christine


Baker, Norman
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Ballard, Jackie
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Barnes, Harry
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Barron, Kevin
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Battle, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bayley, Hugh
Cann, Jamie


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Caplin, Ivor


Begg, Miss Anne
Casale, Roger


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Caton, Martin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cawsey, Ian


Benton, Joe
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Berry, Roger
Chaytor, David


Best, Harold
Chidgey, David





Clapham, Michael
Grogan, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hancock, Mike


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Herman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Healey, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hendrick, Mark


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Cohen, Harry
Hill, Keith


Coleman, Iain
Hinchliffe, David


Colman, Tony
Hood, Jimmy



Connarty, Michael
Hope, Phil


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corston, Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan



Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cummings, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jamieson, David



Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)




Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Day, Stephen
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Denham, Rt Hon John
Joyce, Eric


Dismore, Andrew
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dobbin, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Doran, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dowd, Jim
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Drew, David

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kidney, David


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Efford, Clive
Kingham, Ms Tess


Etherington, Bill
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Feam, Ronnie
Lammy, David


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma
Lepper, David


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David



Gale, Roger
Love, Andrew


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Steve


Gerrard, Neil
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Gidley, Sandra



Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonagh, Siobhain


Godsiff, Roger
Macdonald, Calum


Goggins, Paul
McDonnell, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McFall, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin






McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Shaw, Jonathan


Mactaggart, Fiona
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jaequi (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Spellar, John


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mitchell, Austin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moftatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stringer, Graham


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stunell, Andrew


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Suteliffe, Gerry


Moriey, Elliot
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)




Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Todd' Mark


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Palmer, Dr Nick
Touhig, Don


Pearson, Ian
Ticket, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Truswell, Paul


Pickthall Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Plaskitt, James
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Pollard, Kerry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pond Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Pope Greg
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pound, Stephen
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Primarolo Dawn
Walley, Ms Joan


Prosser, Gwyn
Ward, Ms Claire


Purchase, Ken
Wareing, Robert N


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Webb, Steve


Quinn,Lawrie
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Rapson, Syd
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Raynsford, Nick
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)



Rendel, David
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Willis, Phil


Rogers, Allan
Wills, Michael


Ross, Emie (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Roy, Frank
Wood, Mike


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Wyatt, Derek


Sanders, Adrian


Sarwar, Mohammad
Tellers for the Ayes:


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. Tony Banks and


Sawford, Phil
Ms Bridget Prentice.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bercow, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Beresford, Sir Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Blunt, Crspin


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Beggs, Roy
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Brady, Graham






Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McCrea, Dr William


Browning, Mrs Angela
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mclntosh, Miss Anne


Bumett, John
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Madel, Sir David



Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Maples, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Banet)
Mates, Michael



Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
May, Mrs Theresa



Moore, Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Moss, Malcolm


Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Norman, Archie


Cran, James
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Öpik, Lembit


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paisley, Rev Ian


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paterson, Owen


Evans, Nigel
Pickles, Eric


Fallen, Michael
Prior, David


Flight, Howard
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robathan, Andrew


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fox, Dr Liam
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Fraser, Christopher
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Garnier, Edward
Ruffley, David


Gibb, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Golding, Mrs Llin
Shepherd, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gray, James
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Green, Damian
Soames, Nicholas


Greenway, John
Spteer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Steen, Anthony


Hammond, Philip
Streeter, Gary


Harvey, Nick
Syms, Robert


Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)


Hoey, Kate
Townend, John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyler, Paul


Hunter, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Waterson, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Lansley, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Leigh, Edward
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Letwin, Oliver
Wilkinson, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lidington, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Llvsey, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Llwyd, Elfyn
Tellers for the Noes:


Loughton, Tim
Mr. Desmond Swayne and


Luff, Peter
Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Deferred Divisions

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 7th March, notwithstanding the provisions of the Sessional Order of 7th November 2000 (Deferred Divisions) votes on divisions which have been deferred until half past Three o'clock on that day shall be recorded for one and a half hours after half past Five o'clock, no account being taken of any period during which the House or committee proceeds to a division.
I think that it would be helpful and appropriate, even at this late hour, to explain the effect of the motion. I shall be brief because it is straightforward. It simply shifts the time for taking deferred Divisions on Budget day, Wednesday 7 March, from 3.30 pm to 5 pm to 5.30 pm to 7 pm. I believe that this will be for the convenience of the House, as it will enable Members to listen to the Budget statement in its entirety, provided that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks with the brevity that is traditional on such occasions. I have no knowledge either of the length of the speech or its content. I hope that the House will agree to making this minor and convenient change.
12.12 am

Mrs. Angela Browning: I was sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office did not include in his remarks the time that will be allocated to the Opposition to respond to the Budget statement. We would wish to hear that speech in its entirety too. That appears not to have come into the Government's consideration.
I understand why the Minister has brought the matter to the House—

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is not only the Conservative Opposition who are involved. I suppose that some people might want to hear what the Liberal Democrats have to say.

Mrs. Browning: It is not often that I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think that his supposition is questionable.
When the House debated deferred Divisions on 7 November, it was a rather hurried affair. It was the night of the American presidential elections; Labour Members had other matters to consider. However, the Opposition flagged up our discontent with the length of time that the House had to consider the matter that night, and our principled opposition to deferred Divisions per se. That opposition, having seen such Divisions in practice, is no less now than it was then. Deferred Divisions are an abomination and we shall scrap them when we come to office later this year, or possibly next year, depending on events.
The fact that the Minister has had to come to the House to vary the Sessional Orders for one date only shows the lack of consideration and preparation that was given to and made for them when they were put before the House and debated on 7 November.
Can the Minister indicate what other parliamentary occasions might take place on a Wednesday that would require him to come before the House with such a motion again? Clearly, he will not be able to tell us the day of

the Queen's Speech but in the time that remains to this Parliament it is unsatisfactory to have deferred Divisions that have not been properly thought through in practice—quite apart from the fact that we oppose them in principle.
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but the motion simply shows the weakness of the system. We are all busy, and Wednesday afternoon is a busy time even when there is no Budget statement. Hon. Members have just about got used to the time allotted for the papers to be handed in, but row it is to be varied. If that keeps happening, the chances are that people will miss Divisions. Nor will Members focus on the important matters debated in the previous week. That can only diminish Members' understanding and appreciation of the work done in the previous week on matters that they themselves may not have considered, but which other Members have dealt with.
I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but deferred Divisions are an abomination. The sooner they are finished with, the better.

Mr. Michael Fallon: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). The point of deferred Divisions, which, like her, I opposed, was that we should hold them when everyone was here. Yet the motion asks us to defer them further because everyone might be here. I do not understand.
Originally, we were meant to have Divisions on Wednesdays because everyone turned up that day and it would be convenient for them to vote. Now we are to have them at another time because everyone has turned up. Somehow, it seems, people cannot stagger round to the No Lobby to vote. That seems to negate the purpose of deferred Divisions. If everyone will be here on Budget day, it will presumably be possible during the two hours allocated by the Minister for the Budget for hon. Members to walk from the Chamber to the No Lobby.
Given that the votes take place in the No Lobby, let me assure the Minister that we Conservatives will be in our places in the Chamber, listening as the shadow Chancellor makes his reply. There will be no inconvenience for Ministers or Labour Members who want to walk past us to vote at that time. We shall be rivetted to the shadow Chancellor's speech because we shall want to know what tax rates and spending decisions will apply from April, May or whenever it There will be no question of Conservative Members getting in the way while the Government's Back Benchers seek to troop from their side of the House to vote in the Lobby behind us.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has lost faith in his leader, who, I believe, usually replies to the Budget. My substantive point is that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, does not support a motion that will allow the whole House to listen to the Budget statement. Is he against that idea?

Mr. Fallon: We have had no indication from the Minister that the Budget statement will last the full two hours that he has allocated, if it is anything like the previous Budget statements to which we have all had to


listen, I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity, while the Chancellor drones on about the latest research and development tax credit, or whatever wheeze he may have dreamt up to appease some lobby group, to slip out to vote.

Mr. Hogg: In all probability, the Budget will be leaked in advance anyway.

Mr. Fallon: That possibility had occurred to all of us, and may afford us more time to vote.
My third reservation about the Procedure is that the Minister assumes that the Budget will consume a full two hours. The previous Budgets introduced by the Chancellor have not consumed two hours, so I am a little puzzled about why the Minister is allowing us from 5.30 until 7 pm to vote. He may want to detain or divert his troops into voting in the Lobby so that they do not have time to plough through the press releases attached to the Budget. Who knows? He may not want them to focus entirely on the Budget message.
The fourth and final reason why I am suspicious about the motion is that yet again we are changing the Standing Orders of the House to please the Prime Minister. It is he who has not been turning up to vote in Divisions. We have arranged Divisions specially on a Wednesday so that he can be present and vote on all the various matters on which he has missed voting at 10 pm. The Minister now wants to change the Orders of the House yet again.
The Budget has had to be moved from the Tuesday to the Wednesday because the Prime Minister cannot come to the House on the Tuesday. Notwithstanding his duty to the House, he will be making some speech on the environment on the Tuesday. The changes are all because the Prime Minister cannot be here o i the Tuesday and he must be here on the Wednesday. Once again, we must change the hour of voting to accommodate him.
We have been messed about enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, deferred Divisions are an abomination. If Divisions are to be deferred, they should be deferred to the day after the debate has taken place. If there is a problem with hon. Members attending at 1, 2 or 3 am, why cannot they turn up the next day?
To move the entire procedure to a Wednesday—as one of my hon. Friends once said, just to allow hon. Members to turn up to sign the visitors book—is an abomination. Now, because there is some special event on the Wednesday—there will be other special events and speeches on Wednesdays—we are told that voting will have to be shifted yet again. To time the voting for the entire previous week to a particular hour and a half to suit the Government of the day is an abomination piled on an abomination. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose it.

Mr. Eric Forth: I echo the remarks of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). Let us be clear about what has caused the proposed change. We have seen many examples recently of the Government's casual and arrogant attitude to the House and its traditions and procedures.
It is bad enough that we have the ghastly deferred Division nonsense on a Wednesday—I hope that when the Library starts to produce the Division lists, that will be shown as the sham and the mockery that it is—but it is compounded by the fact that the Government have decided that the Budget will be on a Wednesday this year, for reasons that are not clear to any of us. That has caused the Government to get themselves into what they perceive as a difficulty. There is a conflict between the nonsense of the deferred Divisions and the Budget statement. Why does that conflict arise?
I question the assumption that underlies the motion. The assumption is that at 3.30 on Wednesday 7 March the Chancellor will start to deliver his Budget speech, and of course, 3.30 is the time specified in Sessional Orders for the deferred Divisions. But how do we know that that will be the case? Is it not possible that a private notice question could be granted on that day by the Speaker? We live in times of crisis. Crises surround us daily—almost hourly. I saw on my television this evening that there was a crisis Cabinet meeting this very day. How do we know that there will not be further crises? Regrettably, the existing one may still be with us on 7 March, which is not so far distant. It is entirely procedurally possible that Mr. Speaker may see fit to grant a private notice question for that day.

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House. If he reflects on them, he will remember that private notice questions always come after statements.

Mr. Forth: Yes, but the issue that arises has been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Sevenoaks: the casual assumption about whether my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition will be squeezed out by some combination of events that we cannot foresee. With their usual arrogance, Government Front Benchers are saying that they want to arrange the business of the House to protect the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, but they do not give a damn about the contributions of my right hon. Friend and—let us be charitable just for a moment—of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
One way or another, the House is being asked to change its own arrangements, including even the Sessional Orders that were thrust upon us only a few months ago, because the Government cannot get their act together or organise their business properly. For that reason, they are asking us to sweep aside for their convenience not only longstanding Standing Orders, but the Sessional Orders that they imposed to deliver this ghastly sham of deferred Divisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said that the proposed arrangement was designed to protect the Prime Minister. I wonder whether that is the case. On the face of it, it is designed to enhance the Chancellor's glory, but whether that is to the benefit of the Prime Minister is another matter altogether. Some people—admittedly they would be uncharitable—might argue that the glorification of the Chancellor would not benefit the Prime Minister. However, the question of whose benefit the arrangements are designed to serve is significant and deserves exploration. Are they for the benefit of the Prime Minister or the Chancellor? I shall not dwell on that question; I leave it hanging in the air, as it is relevant to the motion.
All in all, the new arrangements now appear to be a complete shambles. There are conflicts of Standing Orders and Sessional Orders, and the Government want simply to move things around to suit themselves and the Chancellor. They are arrogant enough to ignore one of the great longstanding traditions of the House: the guaranteed opportunity of the Leader of the Opposition to respond immediately to the Chancellor's Budget statement. That task is always acknowledged as one of the most difficult to be faced by a Leader of the Opposition. It was regularly mangled by Commissioner Kinnock, but has been carried out with some brilliance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), so I can see why the Government might want to conspire on this little plot. They are afraid of him and they might want to squeeze him out.
We are not afraid of that, but, in the context of granting the Government ever more frequent opportunities to play fast and loose with the traditions of the House and its Standing and Sessional Orders, we are afraid that the motion is merely yet another example of how they regard the House of Commons and way in which it works. That is deplorable. The Parliamentary Secretary tried, as Ministers now routinely do, to say that this was a small technical matter of little consequence. He seemed to suggest that it could be dealt with late at night and nodded through, and that nobody need be concerned or interested. We are concerned and interested, however, and I hope that we will hear from him some more substantial and persuasive reasons for the Government's actions than he has so far been prepared to provide.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise to support my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
I have particular and general reasons for opposing the motion. My particular reasons are those identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The motion makes provision to protect the Chancellor, but Government Front Benchers entirely overlooked the need to provide time for my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They also overlooked the need, if that is the proper word in this context, to provide time for the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
Three possible conclusions can be drawn, and they probably overlap. One is that Government Front Benchers are plain selfish; another is that they are plain discourteous; and another is that they are wholly incompetent. Indeed, there is another—that they are all three together, which I suspect is the truth.
The Government's decision was probably taken this way: "Oh, we must protect the Chancellor." They did not initially think of the Opposition's response, because they never think about the Opposition. They do not want to hear a response; they simply want to ram their business through. Someone probably then said, "But what about the Opposition?" to which they said, "Damn the Opposition", as they usually do in one way or another, and "Wouldn't it be funny to see their Members going out to vote while the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks

was speaking?" Plain selfishness, plain discourtesy and plain incompetence are bound up together, which is rather typical of this Labour Government. That takes me to the second point.
We should not be conferring respectability on deferred Divisions. The Parliamentary Secretary is doubtless worried that none of his right hon. and hon. Friends will vote in a deferred Division. If that happens, I say jolly good show. We should not be having deferred Divisions. It is profoundly humiliating to see right hon. and hon. Members with their little pink forms in their hands, scurrying around to see a little Whip to say, "Oh do tell me how I should vote", when they had not attended the debate, know nothing about the subject, care not about it all—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not discussing the principle of deferred Divisions but the particular deferred Division that is to take place next week.

Mr. Hogg: Indeed I am talking about the particular as well. I was theorising that the Parliamentary Secretary was concerned that Members would not vote in the deferred Division on 7 March. I was saying that it would be a jolly good thing if they did not, and was explaining why, not in general but in particular terms—the particular term being that the process is a disgrace. Therefore, on 7 March, if Labour Members choose not to vote or are unable to vote, that will be a jolly good thing.
I shall be careful not to vote on Wednesday 7 March because I do not wish to confer respectability on the process. I was very cheered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton saying that we would bury the practice. If she had not said it, I would have done so. When we are in government, let me make it plain that I shall never, ever vote in a deferred Division because I think that the practice is a disgrace.

Mrs. Browning: I reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that he will never be asked to do so.

Mr. Hogg: That is a good thing because if I were asked, I would not do so. Little pink forms and little Whips, running around asking how I propose to vote on 7 March or, indeed, at any other time are an absurdity.
There is the final Point, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst drew attention: this Government's fast and loose practices. Not so long ago, we laid down the Standing Orders that provided for this nonsense. In order to placate or accommodate the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Prime Minister of the day—here today, gone tomorrow—we are being asked to change our rules again. Why on earth should we? Here we are in this old, established legislature, and we are being made a monkey of by monkeys.

Mr. Tipping: This has been a lively debate. It has become more lively and enthusiastic as the evening has progressed. I do not wish to curtail the debate, but hon. Members who have opposed the motion opposed in principle the issue of deferred Divisions. They have made their position very clear. The position of the House is very


clear: deferred Divisions are an experiment and the time will come when Members will have the opportunity to reconsider the experiment.
A number of points have been made about the time available for deferred Divisions. The No Lobby will be open until 7 o'clock, which will give Members ample opportunity, if they wish, to listen to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Leader of the Opposition's reply. The shadow Chancellor may reply to my right hon. Friend after the next general election when a new leader of the Conservative party is in place.
The point has been made by Members who are well versed in the traditions of the House that it is traditional for a Budget statement to be made on a Tuesday. If they looked back at the record they would see that Budget days are not always on a Tuesday. In 1997, it was on 2 July, which was a Wednesday. In 1980 and 1963, it was on a Wednesday. In the 1960s, it was always on a Monday. There is nothing in particular about this year's statement being on a Wednesday.
I am disappointed but not surprised to be called selfish and discourteous.

Mr. Hogg: And incompetent.

Mr. Tipping: I am happy to live with that last insult, but not selfish and discourteous.

Mr. Hogg: And incompetent.

Mr. Tipping: I shall not engage in that debate. It was a lively debate, and it gets livelier as we proceed. I believe that the motion is for the benefit of all Members. I do not believe that it is selfish or discourteous. It is right that all Members should have the opportunity to listen to the Chancellor and to the response, and to vote in deferred Divisions if they wish.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Tipping: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that this would be a deferred Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My apologies to the House. It must have been the liveliness of the debate.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once a Division has been called, I think that it has to be proceeded with.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not the case. The Division will be deferred.

Division deferred till Wednesday 28 February.

Vote on Account 2001–02

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Timms): I beg to move,
That paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply on a day not later than 18th March as if the words '(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.
I have no doubt that we shall have an equally lively debate on this motion. Standing Order No. 55(2)(a) covers votes on account with questions to be put not later than 6 February. The purpose of the motion is to amend the Standing Order so that a vote on account resolution can be taken with the spring rather than the winter supplementary estimates.
The procedure is to meet the requirements of the House when it is necessary to take estimates at a different time than is normally allowed for in Standing Orders. This procedural change is part of the process of introducing resource accounting and budgeting to allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise 1999–2000 resource accounts before voting Supply for the first time, and to produce a more accurate reflection of Departments' needs for the early months of 2001–02 by basing the proportion on account for resources and cash on the anticipated provision for 2001–02 main estimates. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: We have no objection in principle to the change of date.

Mr. Eric Forth: Oh really!

Mr. Letwin: I speak for the official Opposition. I may represent forces unseen rather than those visible in the House.
We have no objection in principle to the alteration of the date, which was prefigured in either 1997 or 1998 and is a necessary consequence of resource budgeting. As the Financial Secretary is well aware, resource budgeting commands the support of and was originated by the Conservative party. While we are at it, resource budgeting is a matter of consensus between all parties, which is not something that recommends itself to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend says that the alteration was prefigured in 1997 or 1998. Can he guess, imagine or speculate as to why such an important change to Standing Orders is being considered by the House now?

Mr. Letwin: No, I cannot. My right hon. Friend makes the good point that it would undoubtedly have been better had the House had time to consider the issue. Indeed, we could have had upwards of two years to do so. Although it is remarkable that we have been given only a few days, I would not wish to oppose the substance of the change of date.
I reiterate two points that emerged during proceedings on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 and which, alas, do not seem to be reflected in the documents that underlie the debate. First, the Supply estimates for


2000–01 remain wholly obscure to any ordinary intellect and it is impossible for any ordinary Member of the House to discern from them what on earth is going on. It was presumably Gladstone's intention when he devised the system that it should illuminate rather than obscure the nature of Government accounts. It has remained the case, however, that the presentation of those accounts obscures rather than illuminates. To put it mildly, that is regrettable.
It will take time to change the system under which we have all laboured for some years. Although I do not accuse the Government of having invented it, no Member of the House has the slightest idea of what is voted for what and why or the size of any increase, and the Select Committees that inspect those matters do so in a manner that unfortunately leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Edward Davey: Shameful.

Mr. Letwin: This is not a party matter and, as the hon. Gentleman says from the Liberal Benches, it is ultimately shameful that we all sit here, year after year, voting on account and, ultimately, voting on the estimates themselves without having the slightest idea of what we are collectively doing.

Mr. Michael Fallon: As an extraordinary intellect, perhaps my hon. Friend can explain why he supports changing 6 February to 18 March in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 55? Why is such a change suddenly wholly defensible? Can he explain the significance of the extra 40 days?

Mr. Letwin: Yes, I think I can, although I cannot explain the substance of the Supply estimates, which is a more serious problem. My hon. Friend is a member of the Treasury Committee and I suspect that he cannot explain that to me, either. The 40 days, the Financial Secretary will agree, are occasioned by the fact that the timetable set for resource accounting some years ago envisaged a termination date approximately 40 days later than that used in cash accounting. I believe that that will occur only in the first year of resource accounting, although I am subject to correction.
As we began the practice of resource accounting and have supported it throughout, and as it is material to implementing certain of our most important policies—for example, restructuring the approach to pensions—we want to give a fair wind to whatever needs to be done to make resource accounting work.

Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend said that most Members do not have the slightest idea of what Ministers intend. Does he think that the Minister whom he faces this evening is acting knowingly or from a position of nescience?

Mr. Letwin: If I may, I shall correct my hon. Friend, who is normally punctilious in his accuracy. I did not say that I thought that very few Members knew what was going on. I said that no Member did, and I meant that. I do not believe that there is any living Member of the

House of Commons—indeed, there has probably been no living Member for a long while—who has, or had, the slightest idea of what is really going on in the supplementary estimates.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is probably one of the most intelligent members of the Government, and I do not mean that ironically.

Mr. Forth: It wo uld not be difficult.

Mr. Letwin: I shall let my right hon. Friend's comment pass in silence.
I suspect that, despite having the advantage of—if I remember correctly—some 2,000 of the most intelligent officials in Whitehall behind him, the Financial Secretary also has not the slightest idea of what is in the estimates, because no living human being could understand them. They were not invented to be understood; they were invented as an art form. There is a serious administrative problem here, which is not being faced.
Before I end what I had intended to be a rather briefer speech, let me mention another problem, which I think could be cured much more quickly.

Mr. Fallon: Before my hon. Friend deals with that problem, may I point out that some Back Benchers try to keep up with policy that is made on the Front Bench? Obviously, it involves us from time to time.
My hon. Friend seemed to say that he supported this change because it was a one-off. I see no reference to that in any of the four estimates already presented for the next year in the Vote Off ice. Is my hon. Friend saying that he supports this change resource accounting just for the coming financial year, as a one-off change, and does not support a permanent, change in the Standing Order?
Let us be clear. We are not being asked to change a Sessional Order; we are being asked to change a Standing Order, which is a serious matter.

Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I understand—although I am subject to correction by the Financial Secretary—that in either 1997 or 1998, when the matter was first raised, it was intended that the change of date should apply to the first year's preparation because of the delay entailed in the original programme for resource accounting I believe it is intended that thereafter resource accounts should be produced according to the timetable that previously applied to cash accounts, which would permit—and I suppose, therefore necessitate—a reversion of the Standing Orders to their original form after the event.

Mr. Edward Davey: I think I can elucidate. The Financial Secretary may wish to intervene, but the Order Paper specifically refers to a "Vote on Account 2001–02". I understood that to mean that the change in the Standing Order would apply only to that vote.

Mr. Letwin: That is what I, too, understand the effect to be—the Standing Orders will subsequently revert to their original form.

Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It might be helpful if the Chair clarified one point. The phrase to which both my hon. Friend and the


hon. Member for Kingston and Subbiton (Mr. Davey) have referred—the title of the motion, "Vote on Account 2001–02"—does not feature in the motion. The motion simply translates the words "votes on account for the coming financial year"—and, once we have changed the Standing Orders, that will apply to any financial year—from Standing Order No. 55(2) to Standing Order No. 55(3), thus allowing for the extra 40 days.
As far as I can see, nothing in the motion specifically relates it to the year 2001–02. I should be grateful if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, could clarify whether we are changing the Standing Orders simply for the accounts in the coming year, or whether we are doing it for every financial year, as the current Standing Orders suggest.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): We are merely changing the Standing Orders

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your understanding—which is also mine, from my reading of the Order Paper—seems to contradict what the Minister indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), from a sedentary position. The Minister indicated that, as far as he was concerned, this was a change to the Standing Order only in respect of the accounts for the financial year 2001–02. It might assist the House if the Minister told us whether your understanding and mine, Madam Deputy Speaker, is incorrect.

Mr. Timms: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I help the House by making the position a little clearer? The intention is that the change will apply to this year only. The vote on account, which would normally be based on a proportion—45 per cent.—of the current year's figures, cannot be so based this year because there is no set of resource accounts to use. Therefore, exceptionally, the 45 pet cent. proportion is based on the projection of spending next year. Therefore, the measure needs to be used only once. When we get to the winter accounts next year, we will be—

Mr. Fallon: Further to that poir t of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order The Minister was replying to a point of order. I would prefer him to conclude his remarks before taking a further point of order from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Timms: Next year, it will be possible to construct the vote on account in the normal way. It will then be taken with the winter estimates, as has always been the practice.

Mr. Fallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister's explanation is absolutely correct and assists the House. However, the motion cannot be right because it amends our Standing Orders, not a Sessional Order. The changes apply permanently. Standing Orders are not changed from Session to Session and will incorporate the words
votes on account for the coming financial year".
That will apply for every coming fin mcial year. If it is a one-off motion—I think that the Minister has made it clear that it is—the title of the motion should have been

incorporated in the motion. I therefore ask you whether it would be possible to defer the matter until the Financial Secretary has reworded the motion and cleared the matter up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The matter cannot be deferred. Those are matters for debate.

Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely if the Minister's intention were to be reflected in the motion, it should have said, at the very least, "on a day not later than 18 March 2001", to put it beyond doubt that it was a one-off and time limited. What the Minister has stated as his and the Government's intention is not reflected in the motion. That obviously causes the House some confusion. Are we to believe the Minister' s explanation, or the words on which we will be asked to vote? That is what we need your guidance on.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The points that the right hon. Gentleman has raised are not points of order, but matters for debate.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that you understood, and I and my hon. Friends understand, that the motion is to change Standing Orders.

Mr. Fallon: For any year.

Mr. Howarth: For any year. If the Minister's intention is that the motion should apply only to the accounts relating to the coming year, it will be necessary, once those are disposed of at some later date, for the House to be invited again to change the Standing Orders. Therefore, it seems to us that the motion, in the terms in which the Government have moved it, is defective.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion that we are discussing is as on the Order Paper. Whatever the interpretations or implications of that are, they are a matter for debate.

Mr. Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry, but the position is now gloriously unclear and hon. Members will, I think, require clarification. If the practice that is proposed this year to embody the Government's intention is to be discontinued in a future year, will a motion of revocation be required—yes or no?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order.

Mr. Bercow: No, you have not.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman that I have given a ruling on the point of order. The motion that we are debating is as stated on the Order Paper. The other points that have been made are matters for debate

Mr. Letwin: I come back to the Dispatch Box a humbler and a wiser man. I think that it is clear that the debate—which was not a debate but rather a series of


points of order—has brought out an important point that is a point of debate: that although the intent of the change is entirely innocuous, it is so drafted that it will necessitate, as I first speculated, a further change at a later date to achieve the intent. I take it that, later in the debate, we shall receive an assurance from the Minister that the change in relation to the following year will be forthcoming on a subsequent occasion. If so, I can return, but wiser, to the proposition that, in principle, we have no objection to what the Government are seeking to achieve.

Mr. Fallon: Madam Deputy Speaker has surely ruled absolutely correctly. The Minister is trying to change the Standing Orders and has tabled a motion so to change them. However, as a consequence of Madam Deputy Speaker's ruling, he has made it clear that he will have to change the Standing Orders again. I submit to my hon. Friend that that is an abuse of Standing Orders. The purpose of Standing Orders is to be standing—they should govern our conduct Session after Session. The Minister has said that he is changing a Standing Order but will have to have to change it again for the next financial year. Therefore, he should not be pursuing this particular procedure today.

Mr. Letwin: I agree with my hon. Friend that, now that the debate which was not a debate has revealed that the motion is less well worded than it should have been, it would have been better if the Minister had arranged for it to be properly worded initially.

Mr. Timms: The procedure that we are following is an entirely normal one. As I understand it, a subsequent change will be needed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the intent of the motion. However, to achieve that intent, we have had to proceed as we have. There is no other way of achieving that intention.

Mr. Letwin: I am learning more and more, but, unfortunately, I am learning conflictingly from my hon. Friends and from the Minister. I know not whether this is the ordinary way of proceeding. Regardless, as we are agreed that the intent is reasonable, I shall rest there for a moment.
I should like, however, to draw attention to what is not in the right order at all—the matter of how we are to reconcile the colum, ns in the vote on account that are to be the subject of the vote to which the change in Standing Orders refers. In our consideration of the Government Resources and Accounts Act, we very carefully and—I am sure that the Financial Secretary would agree—at inordinate length spelled out the dangers and difficulties of operating simultaneously a cash and resource accounting system. We made it completely clear, and abundantly clear to the Financial Secretary, that, to enable any sensible discussion of those votes on account to occur, it would be necessary for the House to be able to reconcile the cash figures with the resource accounting figures.
Even a cursory inspection of the figures in the columns will show that, as is not unexpected, the cash requirement is in many cases si gnificantly in excess of the resource accounting figure. The difference between those figures will lie, presumably, in that part of expenditure that is investment and which is not therefore a loss, in profit and loss terms, and so does not enter into the resource accounting figures. That is understood.
However, there is an oddity. In principle, in a steady state, the cash expended in one year as investment should replace depreciation from a previous year. It is of the utmost importance that we are able to understand the relationship between the excess cash going into investment and the depreciation in the resource accounting figures. Otherwise, we will not know what is happening to capital expenditure and its relationship with the assets being depreciated.
That is a severe, and odd, deficiency. I have not checked Hansard, but I seem to recall that we were given assurances during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act that the problem would not arise and that reconoiliations would be shown. I hope that the Financial Secretary will ask his officials, at a more opportune time of day, to provide reconciliations. In that way, when the accounts come up for voting, we will at least be able to understand the broad headings and their reconciliation one with another.
As I said earlier, no one in the House will understand anything about the supply estimates. That is a much greater problem but one that can be remedied over time, as we develop a system of accountability that enables the House of Commons to hold the Government to account in a knowledgeable and pellucid way, rather than in a form that is opaque and lacking in knowledge.

Sir Peter Emery: I apologise to the House that I was not present at the start of the debate, but I have been watching it in my office. I hastened here before retiring to make a considerable point.
If the Government intend that the provision should apply only for the limited period of this year, they should introduce a Sessional Order, which will fall. They have introduced an alteration to Standing Orders which they will have to change again. Can anyone imagine anything more crazy than that?

Mr. Letwin: I have moved from ignorance, through a wiser state of confusion, and now the clouds have parted and I emerge into the light. My right hon. Friend knows more about the House's procedures than almost any other living person. He has explained for the first time how the Government should have acted. I hope that the Minister will take due account of that preferable way of achieving his intention.

Mr. Edward Davey: We have heard some fairly poor arguments in the debate, and especially in respect of the motion. If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that Standing Orders cannot contain temporary provisions, and that Standing Orders relating to financial matters cannot be changed by Sessional Orders.
If Standing Order No. 55 were not amended in the way proposed, the House would not be able to receive votes on account for the coming financial year based on resource accounting. The arguments that have been advanced tonight therefore fall at their first examination. We should put aside what we have heard so far, and address the substance of the motion.
Like the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), Liberal Democrat Members have nothing against the proposal. The proposed timing charge is exactly right, and the proposal has not been foisted suddenly on the House. I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure that considered the issue We published the second report, HC 438, for the 1997–98 Session. All these issues, particularly the need to have resource-based accounts for 2000–01 in the spring, were foreshadowed in Treasury memorandums to the Select Committee inquiry and were reported on by the Committee.
The Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir John Bourn, in evidence to the Select Committee, referred to that change, as did the chief officer for accountancy, Professor Andrew Likierman. Therefore, nothing should come as a surprise to right hon. and hon. Members if they have followed the process carefully.
I am concerned about two issues at the heart of the argument and what lies behind it. The first is how the House changes its Standing Orders. The Government propose changes to Standing Orders. Although that has been the case for a number of decades it did not used to be. The Chair used to propose changes to Standing Orders until, in the 1920s or 1930s, the Government took over that power. I believe that it was a major constitutional change that slid by the House. We should revert—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. This is not an occasion for a wide-ranging debate on how Standing Orders work. It is a very narrow motion and I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who were thinking of contributing would confine their remarks precisely to the motion before the House.

Mr. Davey: Of course I will do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely seeking to argue that the process of changing the Standing Orders that is before us is not a good one. I think that I have made that point.
My other concern is that the reason for this change that was foreshadowed in the Procedure Committee report has not been met. Paragraph 30 of the report shows that the Treasury said, and the Committee accepted it, that the reason for this specific change was that
Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts"—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says from a sedentary position that the Financial Secretary has already said that. He did not say that in specific terms—he gave a separate excuse for that point. I am going back to the reason that was given to the Select Committee—the real reason. As I was saying, paragraph 30 of the report says:
Since parliamentary approval for the Vote on Account would not then be sought until March 2001, that would allow Parliament an additional three months to scrutinise the first set of published Resource Accounts before voting Supply on a resource basis for the first time.
I took the liberty earlier this evening to talk to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I asked him whether, to his knowledge, either his Committee or a Select Committee had scrutinised the first set of resource accounts.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that the motion is to do with a simple change to a date in a Standing Order. That is all. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Davey: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am doing that. I wish to explain myself. The quote to which I referred was about that change. I am concerned that the reason that was originally given to the Select Committee for the change has not been met.
I am concerned that the House and Select Committees have not scrutinised the first set of published resource accounts—the reason we were given for the need for delay. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury might argue that that is the fault of Select Committees. That may be so, but why have they failed to take those measures? I have raised the matter previously in debates on the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000. If I went into the reasons for what has happened, I should be out of order, so I will not take that route—

Hon. Members: Go on!

Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the idea that such scrutiny could be conducted effectively between now and 18 March is ludicrous?

Mr. Davey: I concur with the hon. Gentleman on that point. Indeed, I agreed with what he said during his opening remarks—that the accounts and estimates produced on the resource basis are not as clear as we were promised in the Standing Committee on the legislation that foreshadowed this proposed change in the Standing Orders.
The House spends much time debating such matters as Standing Orders and procedures, but spends little time on the substance—the cash and resources that we are sent to this place to scrutinise. That is a major problem—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again wandering off the subject. I should be grateful if he would now conclude.

Mr. Davey: I have done so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the motion presents the House with a difficulty that your predecessor in the Chair this evening was able to clear up. Madam Deputy Speaker reminded the House that we can debate only the specific motion before us.
We are in a difficulty for two reasons, however. The title of the motion, which is not of course part of the motion, is "Vote on Account 2001–02". Madam Deputy Speaker ruled and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury clarified that the alteration of the Standing Order cannot possibly apply simply to the vote on account 2001–02, because we are altering a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make it plain to the hon. Gentleman that, this evening, we are simply changing a Standing Order in the way set out?

Mr. Fallon: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that was the purpose of some of the earlier points of order. I was drawing the attention of the House to the title of the motion—"Vote on Account 2001–02". As Madam Deputy Speaker implied, something is wrong; if we are changing a Standing Order, it cannot be related to a vote on account for a particular year.

Mr. James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might help the House if we try to clarify the exact status of the rubric—the title of the motion. Surely, the title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is an error. That indicates the Government's intention, which is that the vote is for this year, but the title should simply read "Vote on Account". If the motion were to go to a deferred Division—as is possible—might the offending figures, "2001-02", have been removed by the time the voting paper appears? I believe those figures to be an error.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. That title "Vote on Account 2001–02" is not

an error. If he reads the Standing Order that is being changed, he will see that it refers to the "coming financial year".

Mr. Fallon: The House is in some difficulty. The present Standing order refers to the "coming financial year", but the provision for votes on account for the coming financial year is being translated from the paragraph applying to 6 February to the paragraph applying to 18 March. By changing the Standing Orders, that will apply to every subsequent financial year. Am I not correct, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the change in Standing Orders will apply to every subsequent financial year?
Perhaps that change has to be classified in House of Commons business as a vote on account for 2001–02, but shortly before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister conceded that he will have to change the Standing Order again for the future year, so something else is wrong. Of course the date of 18 March should only apply to the current year. The motion should state 18 March 2001, because the Minister has already made it clear that he will have to change it for the future year.
I hope that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that something is wrong; either the rubric is slightly misleading, or the date is incomplete, because the Minister has conceded that he is changing a Standing Order, but only on a temporary basis, and that he will return to the House to change it again the following year.

Mr. Bercow: The possibility of 18 March being a Sunday obviously needs to be adequately addressed.

Mr. Deputy Spe aker: Order. That intervention is irrelevant.

Mr. Fallon: I had not considered the possibility of 18 March occurring on a Sunday.

Mr. Bercow: rose—

Mr. Fallon: I shall, of course, give way if my hon. Friend wants to make a separate point.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because I was making only the first of two points, and I know that he will be attentive to that fact. Does he not agree that to be told, in effect, that changing the Standing Order involves changing the Standing Order is not only a tautology, but about as useful as Heidegger's "nothing noths"? Does he agree that we need to know—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be very careful if he is attempting to criticise the Chair in any way. It is very ill-advised.

Mr. Fallon: I shall not pursue the phrasing of the motion any longer; I simply leave the House with my suggestion that it would have been better entitled, "Alteration to Standing Orders", rather than, "Vote and


Account 2001–02", and that it might have been more complete if it had included reference to the year after the date in line 2, but I shall not pursue that matter any more.
We have some further difficulties, given what the Minister has said. I now fully understand, although there is no reference to this in the motion, that the change is intended to accommodate the greater change to resource accounting and budgeting. The Minister has not quite explained that to me, and I am further baffled by the reference made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) to three months because I understand that the change involves approximatetly 40 days. I do not understand how it somehow allows the House or its Committees a further three months for scrutiny.

Mr. Edward Davey: Under Standing Order No. 55(2), which relates to a date in February—

Mr. Timms: It refers to 6 February.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment. Under Standing Order No. 55(2), votes on account were traditionally put before the House in November. That is why the change was suggested, and why it would allow an extra three months to scrutinise the resource accounts, but that has not taken place.

Mr. Fallon: I hesitate to correct my hon. colleague on the Select Committee on the Treasury, but, in effect, the Minister is, as I think I have now said four times, translating the provisions of paragraph (2) to paragraph (3); he is changing the date from 6 February to 18 March, which allows an additional 40 days. Of course the House allows an additional 40 days under Standing Order No. 55(3) in certain circumstances—for votes that relate to defence services, and there may well be good reasons for that; for supplementary estimates and equally I can understand why there may well be good reasons for that; and for excess votes, but only provided that they have been scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, the additional 40 days are allowed and provided for under our Standing Orders, but that is subject to certain safeguards and they are allowed only for a certain category of votes.
In proposing the change, the Financial Secretary is, in effect, classifying all estimates for the subsequent financial year under the category covered by Standing Order No. 55(3). All those estimates will fall under what was previously screened off for three particular categories alone. The change deserves a greater explanation than he has given us tonight.
The Financial Secretary should have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)— perhaps he will when he responds to the debate—why the change is being made so long after the move to resource and account budgeting was first traded. He has had a number of years in which to make the change to the Standing Order, and I am slightly puzzled why he is doing it this year.

Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fallon: Yes, but I hope that this intervention will be a little more fruitful than the previous one.

Mr. Davey: I shall not rise to that bait. The change could not be made earlier because the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 had to become law before it could be made. Until that happened, this change to Standing Orders could not be put before the House.

Mr. Fallon: I am not particularly satisfied by that explanation, either. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 has been law for some time.

Mr. Davey: This is a new Session.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a new Session but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) reminded us, we are not dealing with Sessional Orders. We are dealing with the Standing Orders of the House, and they are not produced or revised every Session at the whim and convenience of the Government. Any change to them is a very serious matter. These Standing Orders were reprinted a month ago, so I am puzzled as to why we are now being asked suddenly to amend them. Why did the Financial Secretary not introduce the change a little earlier in the Session so that we would not now be rushed into making the change after the period beginning in February had already begun?
Once the Act to which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton referred had become law, the Financial Secretary could have come to the House to make the change. He is making it at a very late stage in the proceedings and, in the normal course of events, the estimates that he is trying to translate from Standing Order No. 55(2) to 55(3) would be presented in the next couple of weeks in any event. He could and should have made the change very much earlier in this Session.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend aware that, between now and March 18—which is a Sunday by the way—only 12 parliamentary days are available. Of them, a number will be taken up by the Budget and the Budget debate. Is he not rather worried by that fact?

Mr. Fallon: I am concerned about that. My right hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks, because I was about to refer to the votes that are currently available in the Vote Office. At the moment, only four have been presented and they are all dated February. The first is for £120 million and is for the central Government supply estimates. The second is a vote for £212 million, which is the vote on account for the House and its running costs. The third—the vote on account for the National Audit Office—is for £46 million. The final vote is the supply estimate for the Electoral Commission, which is £4 million. Only four documents are before the House. My right hon. Friend may well want to explore when the remaining documents will be presented and how we will have sufficient time to conclude our deliberations on them before 18 March because, as the Leader of the House has indicated, there is substantial business to discuss before then.
As for what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was struggling to say, the purpose of the Standing Order, as I understand it, is to ensure that everyone—including the PAC and the departmental Select Committees—has sufficient time before the beginning of the financial year to subject the estimates to reasonable parliamentary scrutiny. However, if we classify them as matters that do not have to be considered before 6 February, we will weaken the scrutiny of the departmental Select Committees and the control of the PAC.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The Treasury and the Procedure Committee decided that we needed three months to consider the first set of resource accounts so that the House would have some knowledge of how they were used and of their structure. As a result, we could then scrutinise the estimates that would be covered by the Standing Order. It is the accounts that are relevant, not the estimates.

Mr. Fallon: The motion refers to the estimates, not the accounts. We are not dealing with them.

Mr. Davey: The Standing Order was changed to enable departmental Select Committees to get used to the new system by studying the first set of resource accounts. That is what the Procedure Committee was told and it is what Her Majesty's Treasury set out in memorandum to justify the change.

Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has studied the motion. It refers to the voting of estimates, not of accounts. We are discussing the estimates and asking for the departmental Select Committees and the PAC to be given time to consider them. We have been subjected to a confused procedure. The Financial Secretary has been caught out trying to amend a Standing Order on a temporary and sessional basis. He has been honest enough to concede that he will return to the House—presumably next November or December—to amend the order again so that it does not apply to 2002–03.

Mr. Andrew Miller: The reciprocal argument is that we should give the Government the power to commit a future Parliament to the provisions of a Standing Order. Surely it is only right that we pass an order that is relevant for the time being. A future Parliament must have the right to change it. The Financial Secretary cannot make that commitment, however good he is, and I respect him greatly.

Mr. Fallon: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon will speak. The whole point of a Standing Order is that it has been considered by the Procedure Committee and is adopted not for a Session, but for the long-term conduct of business.

Mr. Miller: Is it unamendable?

Mr. Fallon: It can be changed at a later date, but it must be distinct from a Sessional Order. There is no point in having orders that can simply be changed by any Government motion.

Mr. Bercow: We all understand the point about parliamentary sovereignty, but does my hon. Friend take the view, in so far as he can interpret Government thinking, that Ministers intend that the change should be subject to automatic expiry and the requirement for representation, or rather that it will continue ad infinitum—

Mr. Deputy Spt aker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is at it again. We are debating changes in the Standing Orders before the House, not what may or may not happen in future.

Mr. Fallon: That must be right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my hon. Friend has been misled by the already stated intention of the Minister that the motion is not really a change to the Standing Order. It will be replaced by a subsequent change, which may or may not be a Sessional Order, a standing Order or whatever.
The change weakens the authority of the Public Accounts Committe e. It will make it more difficult for the departmental Select Committees to do their work because it completely changes the time scale. It does so at a late stage in the process. After all, we are already between 6 February and 18 March. If the change were to be made, it might not be unreasonable to conclude that it should have been made before we entered the period after 6 February. The House is entitled to a better explanation.

Sir Peter Emery: I do not like to find myself in difficulty when dealing with matters of procedure. I have no doubt that the motion, which is to insert
(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year",
to be "inserted after line 21" on page 35 of the new Standing Orders, would be a permanency. It would apply for this year and every coming year. As I understand it, that is not the Government's desired intention. That was made clear when the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who has left the Chamber, said that he would introduce an alteration to the new Standing Order that we are being asked to pass.
If the Government had wished the change to apply only to the coming year, it would have been possible to have introduced it by means of a Sessional Order. I am being told that that is impossible, but the new Sessional Orders that we have had since 7 November last year have introduced programme motions, Programming Sub-Committees, a different procedure for amendments and deferred Divisions. Against that background, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the House, if it desired the change to be made only for the year, to introduce a


Sessional Order, which would fall at the end of the the Session. Apparently, that is what the Government desired to do.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Peter Emery: Yes, I suppose so.

Mr. Davey: I think that I can help the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the Sessional Orders to which he has referred are not designed to change anything that is currently in the Standing Orders. If a change were made by Sessional Order, there would be a conflict with Standing Orders, and the occupant of the Chair would understandably have difficulty in interpreting the will of the House with respect to Standing Orders.

Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman, whom I thank for his intervention, believes that it was not a change to Standing Orders to introduce deferred voting on a Wednesday, thus altering the whole structure of voting, I can only say I do not know what would be.

Mr. Fallon: In the appendix to the Standing Orders, it is made clear—I do not know whether it refers to a Sessional Order or whether, since it is in the appendix, it is a Standing Order—that the order referring to deferred Divisions applies only for the next Session of Parliament. Surely that is the route that the Government should have chosen for this change.

Sir Peter Emery: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what a Sessional Order is: it applies only for a specific Session.
The difficulty is that we shall introduce the words on the Order Paper as a permanent part of Standing Orders. There is no doubt about that. The doubt is whether the Government intend that. They have already had to admit that they must introduce an alteration to the motion that they are asking us to carry tonight. That is not the most sensible managerial way in which to deal with Standing Orders. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to interpret the Standing Orders, and I am sure that you cannot believe that to be the best way in which to proceed.
It should be clear to the House that if the Government insist on carrying the motion, they will have to make an alteration soon to prevent it from applying in the next Session. Perhaps it would be more sensible of them to withdraw the motion and reintroduce it as a Sessional Order. Everyone could then agree to it. The Government would get what they wanted, but in a sensible way as regards Standing Orders and Sessional Orders. That is what I recommend them to do.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I, like you, I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, voted consistently against televising the proceedings of this place. However, we have just heard a good reason why televising the House has brought some advantage. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was able to observe our proceedings from his office and then come to

the Chamber to deliver himself of a lucid speech explaining why the Government have made a mistake in the way in which they have sought to present the motion.
Two issues face us. One concerns the arrangements regarding the motion. The other is the presentation of accounts. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made clear, the accounts are extremely difficult to follow.
On the motion, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was helpful in reminding us of how matters stood before resource accounting was introduced. The votes on account would then have come forward in November, giving the Public Accounts Committee and the House plenty of time to consider them in advance of 6 February, the cut-off date by which the votes on account must be presented to the House for consideration.
The Government have been unable to produce those accounts in time for 6 February. Indeed, they have brought them forth tonight, so they are already, in a sense, out of time in respect of Standing Orders. I am happy to give way to the Minister if I am wrong on that, and I hope that he will say something when he winds up. Already, the accounts are out of date, and the Government must therefore amend the Standing Orders, either by Sessional Order or by changing Standing Orders, so that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) said, the arrangements for votes on account for the coming financial year can be moved from paragraph (2) to paragraph (3). However, as my hon. Friend points out, that leaves only 12 working days in which the accounts can be considered by the House, and the clock is ticking.
The Standing Orders before us are brand new. They were printed not last year, but as recently as 23 January. The Government seem to have mismanaged the business. They allowed Standing Orders to be printed a month ago, yet they are now inviting the House to amend Standing Orders.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The date on which the latest edition of Standing Orders was published is not relevant to the changing of the Standing Order before the House this evening.

Mr. Howarth: My point was that as we have so recently re-published the Standing Orders, the Government should have realised that they were due to present accounts to the House by a certain deadline—in the case of votes on account, by 6 February—and that to amend Standing Orders so soon after producing new Standing Orders was nonsensical, or at least a mismanagement of the arrangements. I am not sure how far the Government are responsible for the printing of the Standing Orders; I imagine that the Leader of the House has responsibility for that and must communicate with other Ministers.
I shall not labour the point, but it is worth noting that the documents before us are already out of time. Unless the Government do something quickly to change Standing Orders or by way of a Sessional Order, there is no way that the House can consider the documents that the Government have presented to us. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon is right to say that the change should have been made by way of a Sessional Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing alternative ways of doing these things. We are discussing


the Standing Order which, if the House so decides, will be altered this evening. We are not here to discuss other ways in which we might have dealt with the matter.

Mr. Howarth: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that my right hon. Friend had suggested that that should have been done by means of a Sessional Order. We are being invited to consider a change to Standing Orders, a matter which the House should consider carefully, as Standing Orders are designed to maintain a certain continuity in the House and should not be changed at whim by Governments, willy-nilly.
There should be an element of continuity. The House should be invited to change Standing Orders only when there is a serious reason for doing so. In the Government's view, the introduction of deferred votes was sufficient reason for Standing Orders to be changed. We disagree, but I accept that the Government were entitled to do that. To change the Standing Order in respect of votes on account is wrong.
My second point relates to the accounts themselves and to the clarity thereof. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said that they were not entirely illuminating, and he doubted whether anyone understood exactly what they meant. Without disputing the amounts involved, I invite the Minister to explain the accounts. I do not understand why, for example, when there is in the central Government supply estimates reference to the Postal Services Commission and the Royal Mint, there appears under the heading
Total forecast net resource requirement at Main Estimate on which provision on account is based"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that we are not here this evening to discuss the details of the accounts. We are here to discuss the change in the Standing Order before the House, and I should be grateful if he would direct his remarks to that.

Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
One of the reasons advanced by the Government for the change in Standing Orders is resource accounting, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. We discussed some aspects of the presentation of accounts earlier. The Financial Secretary will have noticed the discrepancy between the £1,000 net resource requirement and the £101,000 cash requirement, which is 100 times that amount, in respect of the Postal Services Commission. Perhaps he can briefly explain that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Financial Secretary cannot briefly explain that, as it is not in order.

Mr. Howarth: I used the word "briefly", but I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should all be grateful for the vote on account in respect of hon. Members' salaries. We all at least want to ensure that matters relating to hon. Members' salaries are not out of order, or our bank managers might be very unhappy campers.
The Government have clearly had some difficulty with the application of resource accounting within the timetable that was envisaged for the more generally established cash-accounting mechanisms. Indeed, they have made an error in tabling the motion. I believe that the means by which they have sought to implement the proposal—a change in the Standing Orders—is not appropriate, but I accept that some change must be made. The votes on account are dated 27 February, but it is clear that they should have been presented to the House for consideration before 6 February, so I accept that some action is necessary.

Mr. Eric Forth: It has become obvious that the motion is largely about time and timing, so it is also inevitably about Government competence. The crucial times have become clear during the debate. The clock started running as far back as 1998 or 1999, when, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) pointed out, resource accounting was launched on at unsuspecting world. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, we all knew what parliamentary—and therefore procedural—response was required in respect of the introduction of resource accounting. That much seems clear and relatively uncontroversial, but then we come to the mystery.
The next crucial dates are 6 February, 27 February and 18 March. We know that existing Standing Orders require that these matters should have been dealt with by 6 February. Presumably, the Government knew that way back in 1998 and 1999. One would have thought that a competent Government would make proper provision and come to the House in plenty of time to give it an opportunity to reflect on the time scales. We should have been allowed to consider what was required, especially as this was a new process that we would all have to get used to. A competent Government would have looked ahead, planned, consulted and then made a proper alteration to Standing Orders or Sessional Orders.
However, none of that happened: 6 February came and went and we now find ourselves on 27 February with this badly drafted motion on the Order Paper. It asks the House not only to approve a change to Standing Orders, but to accept that these important matters, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) pointed out, involve billions of pounds, must be considered between now and 18 March. My diary tells me that there are 12 parliamentary days between now and 18 March. As that day is a Sunday, it is of no use to us, and neither is 17 March, unless the Government intend to suggest that we start sitting on Saturdays and Sundays to help them out of their mess. However, the situation is worse than that because those 12 parliamentary days also include the day of the Budget and the Budget debate.
So, unless the matter will be tacked on to or subsumed by the Budget debate—I would have thought that that would be procedurally unacceptable—the Government are saying to us, "As at 27 February, we will give the House of Commons a very small amount of leeway and time in which to consider matters that involve billions of pounds of expenditure, covering a wide range of issues." As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, that includes defence issues, matters relating to the House of Commons itself, a very long list of detailed items of departmental expenditure, and so on.


This is extremely unsatisfactory to say the least, and how we have got ourselves into this position is self-evident: the Government are either incompetent, or, worse—this is a more sinister explanation—they have conspired to bring the matter before the House so late as to give it insufficient time to consider not just the procedural matter but the substantive matter.

Mr. Edward Davey: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, much as I should like to. I have here a document dated 24 March 1998, which contains the phrase:
Since parliamentary approval for the vote on account would not then be sought until March 2001".
The House was told more than two years ago that we would not be asked for approval for the vote on account until March 2001. Therefore, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's argument seems to Fall.

Mr. Forth: I am not sure that it does. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to help me; his expertise in and influence on these matters is beyond doubt. If we knew about the matter all along, why has it been brought before the House on February 27, late at night, in a rush, not allowing the House to give it proper consideration? That is the difficulty in which we find ourselves.

Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Fiend agree that the genesis of the change is that the Government believe, as, regrettably, Governments have for a long time, that votes on account and, indeed, the whole of the rest of the panoply of the Gladstonian system, are formalities and that we should be asked to vote through £250 billion with hardly a nod or a wink?

Mr. Forth: I fear that my hon. Friend is all too correct in his analysis. Yet again, we have an example—this is a very glaring and expensive one—of the Government genuinely believing that parliamentary scrutiny, whether of financial or any other matter, is so marginal and irrelevant that it can be reduced to the proposed process for both the motion before us and Standing Orders generally. I do not want to get too distracted by the debate—

Mr. Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the House sit in private.

Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 163 (House to sit in private):—

The House divided: Ayes 1. Noes 62.

Division No. 137]
[1.55 am


AYES


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Eric Forth and



Mr. Gerald Howarth.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Austin, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Clelland, David


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Coaker, Vernon


Burgon, Colin
Coleman, Iain


Butler, Mrs Christine
Cox, Tom





Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Mudie, George


Davidson, Ian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Dobbin, Jim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Drew, David
Öpik, Lembit


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Pearson, Ian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pope, Greg


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Purchase, Ken


Hendrick, Mark
Rendel, David


Hepburn, Stephen
Roy, Frank


Heppell, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hill, Keith
Sawford, Phil


Hood, Jimmy
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Hope, Phil
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Timms, Stephen


Hurst, Alan
Tipping, Paddy


Jenkins, Brian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Leslie, Christopher
Ward, Ms Claire


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


McAvoy, Thomas
Wood, Mike


McNulty, Tony
Woolas, Phil


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Tellers for the Noes:


Miller, Andrew
Mr. Graham Allen and


Moffatt, Laura
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Forth: Furthermore— [Interruption.] It is very gratifying to address such a lively House at this hour and I trust that that interest will continue for quite some time. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No.") Oh yes, for quite some time. We were discussing Standing Orders. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, 100 Members are required to vote on a closure motion so the Government Deputy Chief Whip would have to magic up another 38 Members if he wanted to try to truncate the debate, which I am sure is far from his mind. We can relax, enjoy a full-length debate with no threat of Government truncation and explore the important matter before us.
We were talking, were we not, about time—which is very appropriate, given what has just happened. In this instance, "time" relates to how the Government can possibly expect the House to be able to give proper consideration to the billions of pounds to which we have referred, in the brief period remaining between today and the date of 18 March that is mentioned in the motion.
As I have said, there are few enough parliamentary days, and many of those will already be committed. How can the Government expect us to do justice to the items in the accounts? They involve detailed matters, and matters requiring considerable debate. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has already indicated their opacity; that would be bad enough, but their length, breadth and depth suggest to me that, in all conscience, we should give them much more time than the motion allows.
This is yet another matter—not the first that we have encountered this evening, and perhaps not the last—that places a substantial question mark over the Government's competence. It certainly places a question mark over their attitude to the House of Commons and the role it has played through the centuries, acting on behalf of the taxpayer in scrutinising accounts and satisfying us that matters are as they should be. It cannot be right for the


Government seriously to suggest that this pathetically inadequate amount of time can do justice to that job of scrutiny and accountability.
Confusion has featured throughout the debate. There has been procedural confusion; confusion has also been created by the fact that the Minister's version, rulings from the Chair and the text of the motion all seemed to be at odds. The only proper way out, surely, is for the Government to withdraw the motion and table another that reflects accurately what the Minister tells us is his intention and that of the Government. I hope they will do so, because that would contribute in a small way to correcting what all of us who have spoken consider to be a grotesque error on their part.

Mr. Timms: I have rarely felt such pride in the stamina and commitment of my hon. Friends. We have had a thorough discussion, although I am not sure that thoroughness has always been matched by illumination.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for reiterating his party's support for the changes, which might otherwise have been in some doubt, and for his kind remarks. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) for his expert comments—he was able to shed important light on what had been said. I will certainly take up the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for West Dorset about the reconciliations.
As the debate has made clear, it has been said for the past three years that—for reasons I explained earlier—we need to take the vote on the account in March 2001. The procedure we adopted is entirely conventional; changes in Standing Orders are very common. I understand that the motion affects this year only, although it may well be necessary in future to change Standing Orders so that we can handle resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously.

Mr. Fallon: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Timms: I will give way once more.

Mr. Fallon: The Minister has honestly and honourably conceded that the motion may apply only for this particular year. Where does it say that in the motion?

Mr. Timms: It is, of course, a matter for the occupant of the Chair if the question is one of order, but my advice is that the form of words that has been adopted is to have effect for this occasion only. However, as I say, a change in Standing Orders in future may be necessary to ensure that the House handles resource accounting and budgeting expeditiously. There was some discussion about when the Standing Orders were most recently printed. The Government are not consulted about when Standing Orders are printed; that is a matter for the House.
The change that we are considering has been referred to repeatedly in discussions of resource accounting and budgeting over the past three years. It was set out again, for example, in the Treasury memorandum of January 2000 to the parliamentary Committees dealing with

resource accounting and budgeting. It is in the interests of the House that the motion be agreed. On that basis, I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply on a day not later than 18th March as if the words `(aa) votes on account for the coming financial year;' were inserted after line 21.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Straw relating to Data Protection and Freedom of Information shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Motion made,

That—
(1) the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales, being a matter relating exclusively to Wales, be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration.
(2) the Welsh Grand Committee shall meet at the County Hall, Cwmbran, on Monday 12th March at half past Ten o'clock and between Two o'clock and Four o'clock to take questions under Standing Order No. 103 (Welsh Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and to consider the matter of the Budget Statement and its implications for Wales under Standing Order No. 107 (Welsh Grand Committee (matters relating exclusively to Wales)).—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LIAISON COMMITTEE (SUB-COMMITTEE)

Motion made,

That Standing Ordet No. 145 (Liaison Committee) be amended as follows:
Line 31, at end add—
`() The committee shall have power to appoint a sub-committee, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to report to the committee from time to time.—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [31 January],
That the Select Committee on Science and Technology shall have leave to meet concurrently with any committee of the Lords on science and technology or any sub-committee thereof, for the purpose of deliberating or taking evidence, and to communicate to any such committee its evidence or any other documents relating to matters of common interest—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 January],
That, following the Order [20th November 2000], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)

Motion made,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as folows:
Line 40, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 50, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
Line 52, at the end insert the words:
'(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

LANGUAGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS

Motion made,

That—
(1) this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 47); and
(2) the Resolution of 5th June 1996 on the Language of Parliamentary Proceedings be amended accordingly by inserting, after the word 'Wales,', the words 'and at Westminster in respect of Select Committees'.—[Mr. Pope.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Rail Commuters (Castle Point)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]

Mrs. Christine Butler (Castle Point): I feel that we have come on a long, wearisome and tedious journey tonight. I take the unusual step of apologising to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has borne it out so well. Although I know that he has visited some of the subject matter of the debate previously this year, I have about 4,500 daily reasons to be here. Those are my travelling constituents, the poor commuters who have to make these journeys daily on the train to get to work and back. My focus will be on the peak hours when commuters have to travel.
Castle Point has one of the highest out-commuting rates that I know of. Practically two thirds of its work force leave the borough daily to go to work. Some of them go just over the border to Basildon or Southend, some go a little further to Chelmsford, some go to parts of north and east London. Many of them work in the City. Approximately 3,000—I am going on bald figures—take the whole journey to Fenchurch Street and back on the train.
Because we have such a large commuting outflow, we are not just engaged with railways. If we look at the patterns, we will see that roads, too, figure largely. I know that the Under-Secretary of State went to Castle Point briefly last year and saw for himself some of the problems of congestion there. In my constituency, we have some traffic hot spots of which he is aware and which I hope he will revisit soon. One of them is the Sadler's Farm roundabout system, which I believe should become a grade-separated junction, especially in view of its strategic location in the south-east Essex economy and in the overall Essex economy.
In my maiden speech, I dealt with another hot spot—Canvey way. I distinctly remember describing in that speech the slowly moving convoys of traffic coming on to and leaving the island in the morning. I do not think that I have left that subject for very long at any time in this Parliament.
Access to Canvey island is perhaps an even more contentious and important issue. I was delighted when Castle Point was included in the Thames Gateway regeneration project, making it a regeneration area. As such, last summer, its name shone out of a Government document stating that the Government wished to examine the potential for improved access to Canvey island.
All that is very relevant. Traditionally, we have been a low-employment area. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that our long-term objective must be to ensure the creation of more quality jobs within the borough to help to mitigate the effects of excessive out-commuting, which has become so necessary in the post-war period as the community of Castle Point has built up.
It is therefore essential that the journeys that people have to make by train should be comfortable, pleasant and reliable. Sadly, that has not been the case. Traditionally—


even in the good old days of British Rail—the line between Southend and Fenchurch Street has been known as the misery line.

Mr. Alan Hurst: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems with the service extend throughout the whole length of the line? As a regular commuter and traveller on the line, I can confirm that the trains are drafty, unclean and, frankly, bone-shaking. Recently, I was talking to two county councillors who represent areas surrounding Laindon station, which is a slow train stopping station. They told me that when the trains are being difficult, the fast trains continue to be fast but the slow trains do not stop at all. The result is that there are no trains at all at Laindon station. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a misjudgment by management of how to run a proper service?

Mrs. Butler: Not only I, but very many of my constituents would have some sympathy with that view. In recent months, when they have seen the so-called new rolling stock coming toward the station platform, they have simply groaned because they know that the new trains simply do not work and would cause further delay to their journey. A young man from my constituency works the early shift in one of the cafeterias in Portcullis House and tries to catch a train at 5.30 am. Sometimes, however, he has been two hours late for work. Hon. Members will appreciate how such a difficult situation could impinge not only on people's work, but on their entire life. Although one would think that people welcomed the new trains, they do not.
I hear now that Adtranz is being tasked with putting these matters back in order. I have, however, collected some interesting information from various people. I thought I would give the railway travellers association—of which I am privileged to be honorary president—and C2C, which is the company itself, Railtrack and the Strategic Rail Authority a chance to have a say on the various issues. Among the papers is a curious picture of a train being tested in Czechoslovakia. Although I believe that it was a one-off situation, I hear that there was not scope within the United Kingdom to do justice to the required testing arrangements. In fact it is all very curious. I cannot but think that there is more to it, and that the new company, C2C, could have moved matters along in a more timely fashion. It is a subsidiary of the great National Express group, and I had thought that the company would bring more investment promise to the problem than did the previous franchisee, Prism Rail.
I have been on horrendous journeys on the old slam-door trains. In the middle of winter, one could not close windows that had fallen down. On other occasions, carriages have been locked because of incidents in which they have separated while in motion.
I have asked Railtrack and C2C for their views on breakdowns and similar matters. At this very late hour, I shall not go through all the responses. However, according to C2C, the major problems are to do with overhead signalling and circuits, while Railtrack has admitted that a lot of broken rails remain. It claims that the trend is decreasing: where two or three years ago there were 18 broken rails, this year there were only 11, but I suggest that that is 11 too many.

I have been offered reasons for the problems that my constituents encounter, but I cannot accept that the answers are good enough. The problems have lasted for decades. When the railways were privatised, Conservative Members jumped up and down with glee, saying that everything would be fine tomorrow. It has not been fine. We have had promises, but tomorrow never comes.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is the Opposition spokesman on transport matters. He is not present, but he has put the problem down to the Government, saying that the people involved are not able to manage a fragmented service. I thought that that was rather amusing. If I may use the expression, I am pleased that the Government are trying to get matters back on track.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is working on the matter, but I hope that he succeeds in getting on to the train manufacturers and in pinning the Strategic Rail Authority down to some specific date after which penalties will be imposed. However, I fear that Adtranz has run out of the penalty area and so cannot be penalised. I hope that the Government will contact the SRA on this issue. It would be a very poor do if that cannot be done.
Moreover, the problem of overcrowding on trains now represents a very sad state of affairs. Excuses have been offered, such as overloading as a result of the Hatfield crash, but that was only temporary. Undercapacity and overcrowding have amounted to a continual nightmare. People should not have to buy full-price tickets for standing all the way to Fenchurch street station. They often return at night, very weary, on dirty and overcrowded trains, when they have to stand all over again.
I hope that the criteria on which the contract with the present company stands might be reconsidered. I understand that that might be difficult, but there is no absolute deadline for improvement and the matter could be dealt with by the SRA. The authority was somewhat hesitant about telling me what was being done to monitor the situation on the line and about setting out its abilities in regard to enforcement. I am worried by the fact that the enforcement powers are limited. I want the authority to get its teeth into the problem and bite on it harder.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) on securing the debate and providing a further opportunity for the House to discuss C2C rail services. I was grateful for my hon. Friend's apology to me at the beginning of her speech, but let me assure her that there is nowhere else I would rather have been this evening than here, anticipating this debate.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) for his contribution. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) in her place. I know that she and her constituents share many of the concerns that have been expressed by my hon Friend the Member for Castle Point.
As my hon. Friend's comments clearly portrayed, C2C's performance over the past year has been far from satisfactory. The House will know from my comments in two very recent debates that C2C escaped the widespread disruption suffered by other train operators following the


emergency speed restrictions imposed by Railtrack post-Hatfield. However, C2C's performance has been badly affected by problems of its own, notably problems with the introduction of new rolling stock. Unfortunately, owing to problems with software and faulty electrics, only 12 of the 44 new units have been operational at any one time. Considering that these trains should have been in service in November 1999, that is a lamentable and unacceptable record.
The new stock has been withdrawn from service until Adtranz rectifies the problems. I am sure that my hon. Friend welcomes C2C's decision to set Adtranz a benchmark quality target for the new trains. As a result, the trains will not enter into full service until they can clock up 10,000 miles between significant malfunctions or breakdowns.
Understandably, passengers who were looking forward to travelling in comfort on brand-new trains are unhappy about the return of older-style trains It is clear that the replacement trains do not offer the same levels of comfort and, because of their age, they come with their own reliability problems. Unfortunately, C2C was left with no choice but to replace the faulty new stock until Adtranz could demonstrate its reliability.
A further two new units are now to be procured in this first delivery of new stock, and a second tranche of 26 units must be delivered and in service by 30 June 2002. This will see the complete replacement of C2C's remaining slam-door stock and offer some recompense to passengers for the disruption that they have had to endure.
Let me say a word about fare levels on C2C. The autumn 2000 national passenger survey found that only 33 per cent. of passengers thought that C2C offered value for money. So I am sure that my hon. Friend's constituents welcomed the Strategic Rail Authority's decision to cap C2C's regulated fares increases to an average of 0.3 per cent. as a result of the poor performance over the year to July 2000—a fall of 3 per cent. in real terms.
I was pleased that C2C chose to reduce many fares in January. For instance, the cheap day return from Benfleet to Chafford Hundred was reduced by 27 per cent. from £5.40 to £3.90, and the standard return from Benfleet to London was reduced by 90p.
It is easy enough to criticise train operators—as, indeed, I have done in this and the previous two debates on C2C. However, I firmly believe that it is only right that we applaud train operators when they offer initiatives that are firmly in passengers' interests.
I know that my hon. Friend has serious concerns about Benfleet, the only rail station in her Castle Point constituency. Benfleet is classed as one of C2C's core stations, and I am pleased that it has been accredited with secure station status, along with more than 20 of C2C's other stations. The scheme—a joint initiative between my Department, the Strategic Rail Authority and the British Transport police—awards accreditation to stations that reach specified standards in design and management and demonstrate reductions in the crime level and in passengers' perception of crime.
I was also pleased to learn that since C2C—or LTS Rail, as it was previously known—took over the franchise, Benfleet has been fitted with cycle racks, a tactile map for the visually impaired and a disabled toilet with baby changing facilities. Those are all welcome

improvements and I hope that the provision of such facilities will be considered at other stations in the network.
My hon. Friend also has concerns about the need for improved rail links to her constituency. Local authorities are responsible for planning transport in their areas. If there is a demand for a new station—for example, a rail link to Canvey island—it will be for Essex county council to approach Railtrack and C2C in the first instance.
We have made additional funds available to the SRA to support non-commercial schemes that are consistent with our integrated transport policy and can represent value for money. Sponsors of schemes can apply to the SRA for rail passenger partnership—RPP—funding; bidding guidance has been sent to all local authorities. The SRA will assess proposals against planning criteria that have been approved by Ministers. A new station or link could possibly qualify for RPP funding if the SRA judged that it met the necessary criteria.
My hon. Friend has concerns about bus services to Benfleet and Pitsea stations. I understand that a number of services are already provided in the Benfleet and Pitsea area, although I accept that there will always be scope for improvements. I hope that some of the initiatives that I have mentioned previously will help to bring any necessary improvements to the services in the area.
More generally, my hon. Friend will recall that I visited her in Canvey island last year, when she emphasised to me, in no uncertain terms, the importance attached by local people to the need for improvements to transport access to the area. We have considered carefully the proposals in the local transport plan for Essex, including two schemes aimed at improving access to Canvey island. One of the proposals was a high-quality bus link to improve transport from Canvey island to rail stations in the surrounding area.
My hon. Friend will also be aware from our earlier contacts on the matter that, at the time of the local transport capital settlement last December, we did not have sufficient information to form a view on both schemes. We are keen, however, to work with Essex county council to assist it in completing the necessary work for the schemes to be evaluated against our criteria, in time for a decision to be made next December.
We hope that the necessary work can be completed by July this year and a revised bid re-submitted, along with the local transport plan annual progress report, for a decision to be possible in the next local transport plan.
In conclusion, I hope that my hon. Friend is encouraged by the plans that lie ahead for rail services in her constituency. Our plans to deliver a high-quality rail network that can play a full part in a truly integrated transport system will require substantial investment and coherent strategic direction over the next 10 years.
In our 10-year transport plan, we announced £60 billion for the railways—the largest rail spending programme for more than a century. We still have some way to go before we can deliver our vision, but we are determined to work with the rail industry and others to turn our vision into reality.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock.